Renewable Revolution

Environment => Catastrophic Climate Change => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 07:43:24 pm

Title: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2013, 07:43:24 pm
Here’s where you’re most likely to die from air pollution

([/ (
Title: Turning This Latino Farmworker Town Into A Toxic Wasteland
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2013, 03:51:06 pm
The Dirty Business Of Turning This Latino Farmworker Town Into A Toxic Wasteland (
Title: U.N. lists air pollution as carcinogen
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2013, 08:16:45 pm
U.N. lists air pollution as carcinogen

By John Upton

If you want to avoid lung cancer, the United Nation’s cancer-research body has some advice for you: Don’t breathe.  :P   >:(

The International Agency for Research on Cancer on Thursday added air pollution, and the particulate matter that it contains, to its list of carcinogens.

The airborne poisons were classified as “Group 1″ carcinogens, meaning there is “sufficient evidence” that they cause cancer in humans. They are mostly produced through the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants, and stoves.

And it’s not just lung cancer that can be triggered by air pollution. In a statement [PDF], the agency noted “a positive association” between polluted air and bladder cancer.

“Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants,” agency official Dana Loomis told Reuters. “The results from the reviewed studies point in the same direction: the risk of developing lung cancer is significantly increased in people exposed to air pollution.”

The decision follows findings that air pollution killed 3.2 million people in 2010, including 233,000 cancer-related deaths. Most of the deaths occurred in India, China, and other developing countries with large populations. The Clean Air Act helped dramatically clean up the air that Americans breathe, but anybody who has visited Los Angeles or California’s Central Valley knows that problems persist in the West.

Air pollution and particulate matter now join a list [PDF] (, nicknamed the encyclopedia of carcinogens,  that also contains such nasties as
hepatitis, and
tobacco smoke. Oh, and
sun rays,
estrogen therapy,
Chinese-style salted fish, and


Outdoor air pollution a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths, IARC

UN agency calls outdoor air pollution leading cause of cancer, Reuters (

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 22, 2013, 11:04:18 pm
Title: Our Responsibility to Care for the Biosphere; REAL Christians Tell it like it IS
Post by: AGelbert on October 25, 2013, 09:15:02 pm

Environmental engineering

‘We continue to abuse the environment as a convenient dump for increasing amounts of wastes, including large quantities of man-made toxic materials. Our efforts to control the risks have had limited success, but have made us painfully aware of how little is known about natural processes and our created life support system. This environmental crisis, which is to a considerable degree the result of greed—a desire to have more and more material possessions— has now reached a critical point where the damage may not be reversible in time to prevent a major catastrophe.

As a Christian who believes we cannot separate our stewardship role from our faith, I believe it is a spiritual issue, a wake-up call from God to greater holiness. The majority of Christians, including myself, have bought into an economic system based on unlimited growth and, hence, unlimited consumption of the Earth’s resources. Materialism—more and bigger cars, houses, gadgets, etc.—interferes with our stewardship obligations, as well as our spiritual growth.’

Dr Lambert Otten,
Director, School of Engineering
Professor of Biological Engineering
Professor of Environmental Engineering
University of Guelph, Canada.

Environmental science

‘The Bible teaches that the Curse on nature will end—nature will be restored to its original splendour (Acts 3:21), sharing in the effects of redemption (Romans 8:19–23). Biblical visions of this restoration are of people and nature once again in harmony.

‘Christians are part of a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We share the Gospel message with many people, even though we know that probably only a few will respond. Likewise, we ought to be willing to care for creation, even though we know we can’t bring full restoration.

It is therefore right to care for the natural environment, provided it does not conflict with another Scripture principle. Too often we waste and misuse God’s possessions, like the manager in Luke 16:1 wasted his master’s possessions.’

Dr George Hawke
Senior Environmental Consultant
Pacific Power International, Sydney, Australia.

Environmental management

‘The principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development has been widely accepted by governments all over the world since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. One of its main principles is inter-generational equity, i.e. we shouldn’t eat now the future of our children. It’s not hard to see Biblical ethics behind this idea.’

Geoff Meadows
Manager–Environmental Planning
Environmental Protection Agency, Cairns, Australia.

References and notes

1. This current of warm water from the tropics is probably ‘driven’ by cold water sinking in the freezing Arctic. Return to text.
2. Impact # 339, Acts and Facts, September 2001. Return to text. 
3. Hugh Mackay, The Adelaide Advertiser , 2 May 1990. Return to text.
4. Batten, D., What! … no potatoes?, Creation  21(1):12—14, 1998. Return to text.
5. Some say that a consistent evolutionist should not complain about extinction because it is part of evolution. This is true, but may be a little unfair. The evolutionist believes that it took a very long time for nature to create these things, and that the abnormal selection pressure applied by mankind nowadays is forcing extinction to occur at a far greater rate than new ones could possibly evolve. Return to text.
6. For a discussion of the problem of how ‘bad’ things arose post-Fall, see Chapter 6 of The 7. Creation Answers Book,  Creation Ministries International, Brisbane, 2006. Return to text.
7. Singer, P. (Ed.), In Defence of Animals, Basil Blackwell Limited, Oxford, p. 6, 1985. Return to text.
8. Time, p. 57, 26 March 1990. Return to text.
9. Frey, R. & G., Journal of Medical Ethics  9:94–97, 1983. Return to text.

Fouling the nest  Christianity and the environment (
Title: The case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax
Post by: AGelbert on October 26, 2013, 09:52:16 pm
The case for a revenue-neutral carbon tax

By John D. Kelley

“Men argue. Nature acts.” Voltaire

No argument will prevent ice from changing into water when the temperature shifts from 32 degrees Fahrenheit to 33 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate of our planet is not controlled by wishes and opinions, it only responds to the natural forces that drive it.

There is no longer any credible scientific debate that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activities are warming the Earth in dangerous ways. Worldwide, people are experiencing the effects of climate change with sea level rise, bigger storms, larger floods, extreme heat, longer droughts, and huge wildfires. Four of the five largest wildfires in California history have occurred since 2003. The Rim Fire currently burning near Yosemite is the third largest. It has burned over 400 square miles. >:(

We have a moral responsibility to future generations to take powerful action now to moderate climate change by severely curtailing our greenhouse gas emissions. A revenue-neutral carbon tax that would change the economics of energy and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is getting support across the political spectrum. The essence of this concept is to tax carbon production and return 100% of the proceeds equally to all citizens. This is a powerful way to cause a shift away from carbon fuels while protecting American families from higher energy prices. (

 A growing number of people believe that a national carbon tax is the most efficient, transparent, and enforceable mechanism to drive an effective and fair transition to a clean energy economy. To make the economic transition as smooth as possible the tax would start small and increase annually and predictably. At the same time fossil fuel subsidies would be phased out. ( would mean that energy prices would be predictable for people and businesses.

A national carbon tax would be easy to administer. The tax would be charged at first point-of-sale, the mine, wellhead, or border crossing, and would be collected by the IRS. The funds would be placed in a Carbon Tax Trust Fund and rebated to American households. All adult citizens would receive equal monthly dividends and families would also receive ½ share per child under 18 years old, with a limit of 2 child-shares per family. It is estimated that 70% of families would see a net increase in income.

A national carbon tax would be reconciled with existing state programs such as California’s cap and trade system. There are several ways this would be done: 1. Preemption 2. Stacking 3. Integration.

In Preemption, the CA program would cease to function once the federal law took effect.

In Stacking, the program would continue to function as is on top of the federal regulations.

In Integration, the state and federal programs would work together. To ensure that U.S. made goods remain competitive in international markets carbon tax equivalent tariffs would be charged for goods entering the U.S. from countries without equivalent carbon pricing while carbon tax rebates would reduce the price of exports to those countries. These tariffs and rebates would provide an incentive for international adoption of carbon taxes.

Five years ago British Columbia implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It gradually added to the cost of fossil fuels while cutting both personal and corporate income taxes. A recent study reports that BC’s use of petroleum fuels has dropped by 15.1%.” The study also finds that BC’s “personal and corporate income tax rates are now the the lowest in Canada, due to the carbon tax shift.

Perhaps we are finally approaching a political tipping point regarding climate change policies. Currently the Environmental Protection Agency is under court order to issue climate change rules. The fossil fuel industry is fearful of what the EPA may do, so there is a new congressional debate over climate change policy. ( part of this national debate a revenue-neutral carbon tax must be considered.  It would be efficient, transparent, and enforceable because market decisions would select the best clean energy programs and technologies, and the dividends would stimulate the economy. By acting now to implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax we can create a stronger economy and ensure a more livable climate for our children and grandchildren. (

John D. Kelley AIA, an award-winning architect, specializes in healthy, environmentally-friendly home design. A former President of AIA Santa Barbara, he is a founding member of several local volunteer groups including: The Sustainability Project, the Green Building Alliance, and the Mesa Architects. As a concerned citizen he advocates for immediate action to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Title: Wide Support For EPA Across State & Party Lines
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2013, 07:58:06 pm
Wide Support For EPA Across State & Party Lines  (

Fighting emissions regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency must be a winning national electoral issue, right? Otherwise why would so many politicians fight so hard to allow power plants to keep spewing pollution into the air?

Um, not so much. :o  ;D  An overwhelming majority of voters in swing states across the country support EPA action to limit the amount of carbon power plants can emit, according to a new survey from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).

By wide margins, voters in 11 states considered in play for 2014 Senate elections not only support emissions regulation, but trust EPA to administer the policy and say they’re less likely to vote for candidates who either oppose EPA’s proposal or deny climate change.


74% of voters support EPA’s proposals to limit power plant emissions. That support cuts across states Barack Obama (73%) and Mitt Romney (73%) as well as party identification for Democrats (92%), independents (72%), and Republicans (58%). “The anti-environmental message is a losing argument with the American people,” blogged Gene Karpinski, LCV President.

The LCV poll derived these findings from telephone interviews on October 9-13 with 1,113 likely voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia.

It’s also probably not surprising to learn the public wants EPA to regulate emissions, not Congress. At the height of the government shutdown, voters preferred EPA regulation to Congressional action by a 5-to-1 margin, 66% to 12%

Anti-EPA Stance & Climate Denial Cost Votes

In fact, EPA opposition may actually turn out to be a harmful policy position for 2014 candidates. Nearly half (48%) of all voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who opposed emissions regulation, while only 17% said they’d be more likely to vote for that candidate. By comparison, 44% of voters said they’d be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported power plant emissions regulations by EPA.

When presented with both sides of the argument (war on coal, higher electricity prices, and job killer were used against regulation while climate change, public health, and protecting the planet were used for regulation), 64% of voters said they wanted their senator to support EPA’s proposal.

Those same trends translate to voter perceptions about the threat of climate change. 65% of voters say climate change is a serious problem nationwide, and surprisingly say so at a higher rate in Romney states (67%) compared to Obama states (64%).

And if candidates deny climate change, they may be shooting their campaigns in the foot. 63% of voters said hearing their Senate candidate deny climate change would make them view the candidate less favorably than one recognizing basic science.

Pro-Climate Trends Taking Shape One Year Out

Election Day 2014 could be a major turning point for clean energy and climate policy – if Republicans keep the House of Representatives and take control of the Senate, action would grind to a halt for the rest of Obama’s term. However, if Democrats cut into the GOP’s House majority and hold the Senate, Obama could cement his progressive legacy by pushing through renewables support and emissions reduction goals.

LCV’s latest survey tracks with a bipartisan poll from July 2013 that found young voters “intensely supportive” of action to fight climate change, and willing to punish those who ignore the problem. Now that those trends are showing up across the wider US population, on broader policy fronts, it might just be time to scrap that climate-denier, anti-EPA playbook.

Title: Re: Pollution/Devolution of the Seas
Post by: Surly1 on October 31, 2013, 07:11:46 am
This article brought to our attention By Gail Zawacki on the Earth Matters FB page. It appeared in Foreign Affairs (!) and in spite of that, we offer it here. It illustrates the extent to which we are soiling our own nest through apathy and ignorance.

The Devolution of the Seas (
October 29, 2013 at 2:28pm

The Devolution of the Seas: The Consequences of Oceanic Destruction
By Alan B. Sielen

Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable descent of the world’s oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago.
A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time would have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep. In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and other sea life one associates with the oceans today.
Yet that sea life is now in peril. Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it “the rise of slime”: the transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats.
The prospect of vanishing whales, polar bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption of entire ecosystems threatens our very survival, since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that sustains life on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and quality of life. It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better future.
Humans are eliminating the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats.
The oceans’ problems start with pollution, the most visible forms of which are the catastrophic spills from offshore oil and gas drilling or from tanker accidents. Yet as devastating as these events can be, especially locally, their overall contribution to marine pollution pales in comparison to the much less spectacular waste that finds its way to the seas through rivers, pipes, runoff, and the air. For example, trash -- plastic bags, bottles, cans, tiny plastic pellets used in manufacturing -- washes into coastal waters or gets discarded by ships large and small. This debris drifts out to sea, where it forms epic gyres of floating waste, such as the infamous Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which spans hundreds of miles across the North Pacific Ocean.
The most dangerous pollutants are chemicals. The seas are being poisoned by substances that are toxic, remain in the environment for a long time, travel great distances, accumulate in marine life, and move up the food chain. Among the worst culprits are heavy metals such as mercury, which is released into the atmosphere by the burning of coal and then rains down on the oceans, rivers, and lakes; mercury can also be found in medical waste.
Hundreds of new industrial chemicals enter the market each year, most of them untested. Of special concern are those known as persistent organic pollutants, which are commonly found in streams, rivers, coastal waters, and, increasingly, the open ocean. These chemicals build up slowly in the tissues of fish and shellfish and are transferred to the larger creatures that eat them. Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have linked exposure to persistent organic pollutants to death, disease, and abnormalities in fish and other wildlife. These pervasive chemicals can also adversely affect the development of the brain, the neurologic system, and the reproductive system in humans.
Then there are the nutrients, which increasingly show up in coastal waters after being used as chemical fertilizers on farms, often far inland. All living things require nutrients; excessive amounts, however, wreak havoc on the natural environment. Fertilizer that makes its way into the water causes the explosive growth of algae. When these algae die and sink to the sea floor, their decomposition robs the water of the oxygen needed to support complex marine life. Some algal blooms also produce toxins that can kill fish and poison humans who consume seafood.
The result has been the emergence of what marine scientists call “dead zones” -- areas devoid of the ocean life people value most. The high concentration of nutrients flowing down the Mississippi River and emptying into the Gulf of Mexico has created a seasonal offshore dead zone larger than the state of New Jersey. An even larger dead zone -- the world’s biggest -- can be found in the Baltic Sea, which is comparable in size to California. The estuaries of China’s two greatest rivers, the Yangtze and the Yellow, have similarly lost their complex marine life. Since 2004, the total number of such aquatic wastelands worldwide has more than quadrupled, from 146 to over 600 today.
Another cause of the oceans’ decline is that humans are simply killing and eating too many fish. A frequently cited 2003 study in the journal Nature by the marine biologists Ransom Myers and Boris Worm found that the number of large fish -- both open-ocean species, such as tuna, swordfish, and marlin, and large groundfish, such as cod, halibut, and flounder -- had declined by 90 percent since 1950. The finding provoked controversy among some scientists and fishery managers. But subsequent studies have confirmed that fish populations have indeed fallen dramatically.
In fact, if one looks back further than 1950, the 90 percent figure turns out to be conservative. As historical ecologists have shown, we are far removed from the days when Christopher Columbus reported seeing large numbers of sea turtles migrating off the coast of the New World, when 15-foot sturgeon bursting with caviar leaped from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, when George Washington’s Continental army could avoid starvation by feasting on swarms of shad swimming upriver to spawn, when dense oyster beds nearly blocked the mouth of the Hudson River, and when the early-twentieth-century American adventure writer Zane Grey marveled at the enormous swordfish, tuna, wahoo, and grouper he found in the Gulf of California.
Today, the human appetite has nearly wiped those populations out. It’s no wonder that stocks of large predator fish are rapidly dwindling when one considers the fact that one bluefin tuna can go for hundreds of thousands of dollars at market in Japan. High prices -- in January 2013, a 489-pound Pacific bluefin tuna sold for $1.7 million at auction in Tokyo -- make it profitable to employ airplanes and helicopters to scan the ocean for the fish that remain; against such technologies, marine animals don’t stand a chance.
Nor are big fish the only ones that are threatened. In area after area, once the long-lived predatory species, such as tuna and swordfish, disappear, fishing fleets move on to smaller, plankton-eating fish, such as sardines, anchovy, and herring. The overexploitation of smaller fish deprives the larger wild fish that remain of their food; aquatic mammals and sea birds, such as ospreys and eagles, also go hungry. Marine scientists refer to this sequential process as fishing down the food chain.
The problem is not just that we eat too much seafood; it’s also how we catch it. Modern industrial fishing fleets drag lines with thousands of hooks miles behind a vessel, and industrial trawlers on the high seas drop nets thousands of feet below the sea’s surface. In the process, many untargeted species, including sea turtles, dolphins, whales, and large sea birds (such as albatross) get accidentally captured or entangled. Millions of tons of unwanted sea life is killed or injured in commercial fishing operations each year; indeed, as much as a third of what fishermen pull out of the waters was never meant to be harvested. Some of the most destructive fisheries discard 80 to 90 percent of what they bring in. In the Gulf of Mexico, for example, for every pound of shrimp caught by a trawler, over three pounds of marine life is thrown away.
As the oceans decline and the demand for their products rises, marine and freshwater aquaculture may look like a tempting solution. After all, since we raise livestock on land for food, why not farm fish at sea? Fish farming is growing faster than any other form of food production, and today, the majority of commercially sold fish in the world and half of U.S. seafood imports come from aquaculture. Done right, fish farming can be environmentally acceptable. But the impact of aquaculture varies widely depending on the species raised, methods used, and location, and several factors make healthy and sustainable production difficult. Many farmed fish rely heavily on processed wild fish for food, which eliminates the fish-conservation benefits of aquaculture. Farmed fish can also escape into rivers and oceans and endanger wild populations by transmitting diseases or parasites or by competing with native species for feeding and spawning grounds. Open-net pens also pollute, sending fish waste, pesticides, antibiotics, uneaten food, diseases, and parasites flowing directly into the surrounding waters.
Yet another factor driving the decline of the oceans is the destruction of the habitats that have allowed spectacular marine life to thrive for millennia. Residential and commercial development have laid waste to once-wild coastal areas. In particular, humans are eliminating coastal marshes, which serve as feeding grounds and nurseries for fish and other wildlife, filter out pollutants, and fortify coasts against storms and erosion.
Hidden from view but no less worrying is the wholesale destruction of deep-ocean habitats. For fishermen seeking ever more elusive prey, the depths of the seas have become the earth’s final frontier. There, submerged mountain chains called seamounts -- numbering in the tens of thousands and mostly uncharted -- have proved especially desirable targets. Some rise from the sea floor to heights approaching that of Mount Rainier, in Washington State. The steep slopes, ridges, and tops of seamounts in the South Pacific and elsewhere are home to a rich variety of marine life, including large pools of undiscovered species.
Today, fishing vessels drag huge nets outfitted with steel plates and heavy rollers across the sea floor and over underwater mountains, more than a mile deep, destroying everything in their path. As industrial trawlers bulldoze their way along, the surfaces of seamounts are reduced to sand, bare rock, and rubble. Deep cold-water corals, some older than the California redwoods, are being obliterated. In the process, an unknown number of species from these unique islands of biological diversity -- which might harbor new medicines or other important information -- are being driven extinct before humans even get a chance to study them.
Relatively new problems present additional challenges. Invasive species, such as lionfish, zebra mussels, and Pacific jellyfish, are disrupting coastal ecosystems and in some cases have caused the collapse of entire fisheries. Noise from sonar used by military systems and other sources can have devastating effects on whales, dolphins, and other marine life. Large vessels speeding through busy shipping lanes are also killing whales. Finally, melting Arctic ice creates new environmental hazards, as wildlife habitats disappear, mining becomes easier, and shipping routes expand.
As if all this were not enough, scientists estimate that man-made climate change will drive the planet’s temperature up by between four and seven degrees Fahrenheit over the course of this century, making the oceans hotter. Sea levels are rising, storms are getting stronger, and the life cycles of plants and animals are being upended, changing migration patterns and causing other serious disruptions.
Global warming has already devastated coral reefs, and marine scientists now foresee the collapse of entire reef systems in the next few decades. Warmer waters drive out the tiny plants that corals feed on and depend on for their vivid coloration. Deprived of food, the corals starve to death, a process known as “bleaching.” At the same time, rising ocean temperatures promote disease in corals and other marine life. Nowhere are these complex interrelationships contributing to dying seas more than in fragile coral ecosystems.
The oceans have also become more acidic as carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere dissolves in the world’s water. The buildup of acid in ocean waters reduces the availability of calcium carbonate, a key building block for the skeletons and shells of corals, plankton, shellfish, and many other marine organisms. Just as trees make wood to grow tall and reach light, many sea creatures need hard shells to grow and also to guard against predators.
On top of all these problems, the most severe impact of the damage being done to the oceans by climate change and ocean acidification may be impossible to predict. The world’s seas support processes essential to life on earth. These include complex biological and physical systems, such as the nitrogen and carbon cycles; photosynthesis, which creates half of the oxygen that humans breathe and forms the base of the ocean’s biological productivity; and ocean circulation. Much of this activity takes place in the open ocean, where the sea and the atmosphere interact. Despite flashes of terror, such as the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of 2004, the delicate balance of nature that sustains these systems has remained remarkably stable since well before the advent of human civilization.
But these complex processes both influence and respond to the earth’s climate, and scientists see certain recent developments as red flags possibly heralding an impending catastrophe. To take one example, tropical fish are increasingly migrating to the cooler waters of the Arctic and Southern oceans. Such changes may result in extinctions of fish species, threatening a critical food source especially in developing countries in the tropics. Or consider that satellite data show that warm surface waters are mixing less with cooler, deeper waters. This reduction in vertical mixing separates near-surface marine life from the nutrients below, ultimately driving down the population of phytoplankton, which is the foundation of the ocean’s food chain. Transformations in the open ocean could dramatically affect the earth’s climate and the complex processes that support life both on land and at sea. Scientists do not yet fully understand how all these processes work, but disregarding the warning signs could result in grave consequences.
Governments and societies have come to expect much less from the sea. The base lines of environmental quality, good governance, and personal responsibility have plummeted. This passive acceptance of the ongoing destruction of the seas is all the more shameful given how avoidable the process is. Many solutions exist, and some are relatively simple. For example, governments could create and expand protected marine areas, adopt and enforce stronger international rules to conserve biological diversity in the open ocean, and place a moratorium on the fishing of dwindling fish species, such as Pacific bluefin tuna. But solutions will also require broader changes in how societies approach energy, agriculture, and the management of natural resources. Countries will have to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, transition to clean energy, eliminate the worst toxic chemicals, and end the massive nutrient pollution in watersheds.
These challenges may seem daunting, especially for countries focused on basic survival. But governments, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, scholars, and businesses have the necessary experience and capacity to find answers to the oceans’ problems. And they have succeeded in the past, through innovative local initiatives on every continent, impressive scientific advances, tough environmental regulation and enforcement, and important international measures, such as the global ban on the dumping of nuclear waste in the oceans.
So long as pollution, overfishing, and ocean acidification remain concerns only for scientists, however, little will change for the good. Diplomats and national security experts, who understand the potential for conflict in an overheated world, should realize that climate change might soon become a matter of war and peace. Business leaders should understand better than most the direct links between healthy seas and healthy economies. And government officials, who are entrusted with the public’s well-being, must surely see the importance of clean air, land, and water.
The world faces a choice. We do not have to return to an oceanic Stone Age. Whether we can summon the political will and moral courage to restore the seas to health before it is too late is an open question. The challenge and the opportunity are there.
If you have a password, see the original here:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2013, 04:08:12 pm
The world faces a choice.

And the 99% have made the right one. It's the 1% with their massive financial leverage that need to wake up and smell the coffee. (

Title: Making "lemonade' out of 600 Year Polluting 'lemons'
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2013, 11:34:33 pm
Discarded Fishing Nets Turn Into Carpets And Benefits Communities
Reducing Pollution AND Poverty


An inspiring story of Win Win Win 

 Here is a business that harvests fishing nets from the shorelines of the Philippines and uses the nylon they're made of to create 100% recycled carpeting.

 These fishing nets were traditionally just left on the shores, polluting the environment for 600 years. Worse, they were discarded in the water and caught fish and other marine life that just lingered and died for no benefit.

 "Networks" is a program that takes discarded fishing nets from impoverished communities and recycles them into carpet tile. Not only do the nets turn into something useful instead of polluting the environment, but the program is set up to benefit the community in the long term.

 An inspiring story of Win Win Win that is just getting started. Other materials are next!

 --Bibi Farber

 This video was produced by Sustainable Brands

- See more at:
Title: Starfish Along West Coast Are Dying, ‘Star Wasting Disease’ Turns Fish Into ‘Goo
Post by: AGelbert on November 05, 2013, 11:35:24 pm
Starfish Along West Coast Are Dying, ‘Star Wasting Disease’ (

“Every population has sick animals,” Gaydos said. “Are we just seeing sick animals because we’re looking for it, or is it an early sign of a large epidemic that may come through and wipe out a lot of animals?”

Surly, Thank you for this article. This is FAR more serious than meets the eye.



What Eats A Starfish? What eats starfish?

What do starfish eat?

To us humans, starfish look like they’d be a bit too hard and crunchy to make a good meal. But starfish do have a few predators, or natural enemies.

Manta rays, some sharks and other large, bony fishes like to pick starfish off the bottom of the ocean, crunch them up and eat them.

In addition, small starfish need to be on the lookout for larger starfish, which will sometimes attack, kill and eat them.

What do starfish eat? Most species eat mussels and other mollusks, or shellfish. (

The reason this is so serious is because the mollusks that starfish eat are mainly FILTER FEEDERS. Why is this important (as in OH ****! :P)? Because filter feeders are THE life form that concentrates radioactive cesium (taking it up into their muscle tissue). I'll bet you dollars to donuts this is a sign of the Fukushima radioisotopes concentrating in mussels starting to move up the chain of sea life that eats them.


It has begun. The BULLSHIT the nuke pukes were always putting out that the "solution to pollution is dilution" DOES NOT WORK with living sea life that sucks in the radioisotopes and concentrates them because, in nature, the non radioactive elements and the elements these God Damned radioisotopes mimic ARE ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS! Radioinuclides are the ULTIMATE poison pill disguised as an attractive natural important nutrient. Another "minor detail" the IDIOTS that back nuclear power never have gotten through their greedy skulls. 

( (

"Since caesium does not volatilise from water, transport of caesium from water to the atmosphere is not considered likely,except by windblown sea sprays. Most of the caesium released to water will adsorb to suspended solids in the water column and ultimately be deposited in the sediment core. Caesium can also bioconcentrate and has been shown to bioaccumulate in both terrestrial and aquatic food chains. Mean bioconcentration factors (BCF) for 137Cs of 146, 124, and 63 were reported for fish, brown macroalgae, and molluscs, respectively." :P (

And radioactive cesium is just ONE of the 57 or so radioinuclides STILL getting pumped into the Pacific ocean. UGH! :emthdown: :emthdown: :emthdown: :'(

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 15, 2013, 02:26:43 am
Corporate Crooks united to hobble enforcement of environmental regulations and eliminate them if possible. It's Profits over planet all the way for A.L.E.C. and their ilk.  >:(
Title: Train loaded with oil derails, explodes, pollutes Alabama wetlands
Post by: AGelbert on November 18, 2013, 01:08:49 am

Train loaded with oil derails, explodes, pollutes Alabama wetlands

By John Upton

Yet another oil-hauling train has derailed and exploded, this one sending flaming cars loaded with North Dakota crude into Alabama wetlands. >:(

The 90-car train derailed early Friday, causing flames to shoot 300 feet into the air.   (
( No injuries were reported. One family living in the marshy area was evacuated from their home following the accident. The L.A. Times has the details:

A train that derailed and exploded in rural Alabama was hauling 2.7 million gallons of crude oil, according to officials.

The 90-car train was crossing a timber trestle above a wetland near Aliceville late Thursday night when approximately 25 rail cars and two locomotives derailed, spilling crude oil into the surrounding wetlands and igniting a fire that was still burning Saturday.

Each of the 90 cars was carrying 30,000 gallons of oil, said Bill Jasper, president of the rail company Genesee & Wyoming at a press briefing Friday night. It’s unclear, though, how much oil was spilled because some of the cars have yet to be removed from the marsh.

And here’s more from Reuters:

A local official said the crude oil had originated in North Dakota, home of the booming Bakken shale patch. If so, it may have been carrying the same type of light crude oil that was on a Canadian train that derailed in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic this summer, killing 47 people. …

The accident happened in a wetlands area that eventually feeds into the Tombigbee River, according to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Booms were placed in the wetlands to contain the spilled oil.

In Demopolis, Alabama, some 40 miles south of the site of the accident, where the rail line runs 300 meters away from the U.S. Jones Elementary School, Mayor Michael Grayson said there hadn’t been an accident in the area in a century of train traffic.

But since last summer, when the oil trains first began humming past, officials discussed what might happen if a bridge just outside of town collapsed, dumping crude into the river.

“Sadly, with this thing, the only thing you can do is try to be prepared,” he said by phone.

Thanks to the North American oil boom, more and more crude is being shipped by rail — and more and more crude is being spilled by rail. The Lac-Megantic disaster isn’t the only previous example. There were 88 rail accidents involving crude oil last year, up from one or two per year during much of the previous decade. Other high-profile accidents in North America this year have included a 15,000-gallon spill from a derailed train in Minnesota in April and a fiery accident near Edmonton, Alberta, last month.

These accidents often fuel debate over whether more pipelines should be built to help safely haul oil and natural gas across the continent. But pipeline spills are on the rise too. Has anybody thought of just leaving the filthy stuff in the ground?  >:(


Train carrying crude oil derails, cars ablaze in Alabama, Reuters
Train in Alabama oil spill was carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude, L.A. Times

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 18, 2013, 08:23:05 pm
Entire Texan town evacuated after pipeline explosion  (

By John Upton
milford-explosion.jpg   NBC

A Texas town an hour’s drive from Dallas was a ghost town over the weekend. Plumes of smoke hung ghoulishly over its sky, visible from more than 25 miles away.

Which company ruined the weekend of the entire town, condemning its residents to crappy nearby hotel rooms? Chevron.

One of the company’s pipelines exploded early Thursday as a Chevron crew was working on it, triggering a long-burning fire and the nearby town’s evacuation. No injuries were reported. From a CNN report on Saturday:

Police required all residents of Milford, which has an estimated population of 700, to leave, after the underground pipeline exploded early Thursday, sending up orange flames stories high, said spokesman Malcolm Ward.

The Chevron oil company asked that the safety measure be taken, the company said in a statement Friday. A jet black plume of smoke has been billowing up towards the clouds. The statement mentioned not wanting to risk exposing residents to possible effects on air quality in Milford.

Most of the residents were allowed to return to their homes on Sunday, but the four families who lived closest to the explosion were required to spend at least one more night away from home. That’s because the fire was still burning — three days after the explosion. Meanwhile, crews were working to ignite residual petroleum gas left in the isolated stretch of pipeline to deprive the flames of fuel.


Texas oil pipeline fire causes evacuation of town near Dallas, CNN
Four homes still evacuated near Milford gas explosion, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:
Title: Just 90 companies CAUSED TWO THIRDS of man-made global warming emissions!
Post by: AGelbert on November 20, 2013, 11:41:38 pm
Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions (, Wednesday 20 November 2013 11.07 EST

Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age, figures show (

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests.

The companies range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon and BP – to state-owned and government-run firms.

The analysis, which was welcomed by the former vice-president Al Gore as a "crucial step forward" found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas or coal, found the analysis, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Climatic Change.

"There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two."

Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change.

Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are burned – puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change.
Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.

The United Nations climate change panel, the IPCC, warned in September that at current rates the world stood within 30 years of exhausting its "carbon budget" – the amount of carbon dioxide it could emit without going into the danger zone above 2C warming. The former US vice-president and environmental champion, Al Gore, said the new carbon accounting could re-set the debate about allocating blame for the climate crisis.

Leaders meeting in Warsaw for the UN climate talks this week clashed repeatedly over which countries bore the burden for solving the climate crisis – historic emitters such as America or Europe or the rising economies of India and China.

Gore in his comments said the analysis underlined that it should not fall to governments alone to act on climate change.

"This study is a crucial step forward in our understanding of the evolution of the climate crisis. The public and private sectors alike must do what is necessary to stop global warming," Gore told the Guardian. "Those who are historically responsible for polluting our atmosphere have a clear obligation to be part of the solution."

Between them, the 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatonne CO2 emissions, according to the research. All but seven of the 90 were energy companies producing oil, gas and coal. The remaining seven were cement manufacturers.

The list of 90 companies included 50 investor-owned firms – mainly oil companies with widely recognised names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP , and Royal Dutch Shell and coal producers such as British Coal Corp, Peabody Energy and BHP Billiton.

Some 31 of the companies that made the list were state-owned companies such as Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, Russia's Gazprom and Norway's Statoil.

Nine were government run industries, producing mainly coal in countries such as China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and Poland, the host of this week's talks.

Experts familiar with Heede's research and the politics of climate change said they hoped the analysis could help break the deadlock in international climate talks.

"It seemed like maybe this could break the logjam," said Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard. "There are all kinds of countries that have produced a tremendous amount of historical emissions that we do not normally talk about. We do not normally talk about Mexico or Poland or Venezuela. So then it's not just rich v poor, it is also producers v consumers, and resource rich v resource poor."

Michael Mann, the climate scientist, said he hoped the list would bring greater scrutiny to oil and coal companies' deployment of their remaining reserves. "What I think could be a game changer here is the potential for clearly fingerprinting the sources of those future emissions," he said. "It increases the accountability for fossil fuel burning. You can't burn fossil fuels without the rest of the world knowing about it."

Others were less optimistic that a more comprehensive accounting of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions would make it easier to achieve the emissions reductions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.

John Ashton, who served as UK's chief climate change negotiator for six years, suggested that the findings reaffirmed the central role of fossil fuel producing entities in the economy.

"The challenge we face is to move in the space of not much more than a generation from a carbon-intensive energy system to a carbonneutral energy system. If we don't do that we stand no chance of keeping climate change within the 2C threshold," Ashton said.

"By highlighting the way in which a relatively small number of large companies are at the heart of the current carbon-intensive growth model, this report highlights that fundamental challenge."

Meanwhile, Oreskes, who has written extensively about corporate-funded climate denial, noted that several of the top companies on the list had funded the climate denial movement.   (
"For me one of the most interesting things to think about was the overlap of large scale producers and the funding of disinformation campaigns, and how that has delayed action," she said.

The data represents eight years of exhaustive research into carbon emissions over time, as well as the ownership history of the major emitters.

The companies' operations spanned the globe, with company headquarters in 43 different countries. "These entities extract resources from every oil, natural gas and coal province in the world, and process the fuels into marketable products that are sold to consumers on every nation on Earth," Heede writes in the paper.

The largest of the investor-owned companies were responsible for an outsized share of emissions. Nearly 30% of emissions were produced just by the top 20 companies, the research found.
By Heede's calculation, government-run oil and coal companies in the former Soviet Union produced more greenhouse gas emissions than any other entity – just under 8.9% of the total produced over time. China came a close second with its government-run entities accounting for 8.6% of total global emissions.

ChevronTexaco was the leading emitter among investor-owned companies, causing 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions to date, with Exxon not far behind at 3.2%. In third place, BP caused 2.5% of global emissions to date.

The historic emissions record was constructed using public records and data from the US department of energy's Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, and took account of emissions all along the supply chain.

The centre put global industrial emissions since 1751 at 1,450 gigatonnes.

Which companies caused global warming?
A new paper shows which companies extracted the carbon-based fuels that have caused climate change. (

( Here for Interactive Pie Chart of the Guilty 90 Main Polluters that PROFITED  from Fossil Fuels! (
Title: Climate debt collectors: Occupy wants the 1% to pay up!
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2013, 09:26:18 pm
Climate debt collectors: Occupy wants the 1% to pay up


By Heather Smith

Last year, Strike Debt — a small collective of New York-based academics, filmmakers, and business types — published a short book called The Debt Resistors’ Operations Manual [PDF], which alternated between dispensing advice on how to clean up credit scores and chronicling the recent history of the finance industry.

Strike Debt is also known for a project called the Rolling Jubilee, which buys up old medical and mortgage debt that people might be despairing of ever paying off, and then erases it. The Rolling Jubilee earned the somewhat backhanded honor of being named “one of the few good ideas to come out of Occupy Wall Street” by Forbes.

The next edition of the The Debt Resistors’ Operations Manual — currently in the works, and due to be finished next year — will have something that the original lacked: a chapter on climate change.

Why the shift? We recently spoke with Andrew Ross, professor of Social and Cultural Analysis at NYU, who became involved in Occupy in the early days of Zuccotti Park and helped to launch the Occupy Student Debt campaign before becoming a member of Strike Debt. Ross is the author of several books, most recently Creditocracy: The Case for Debt Refusal, which will be published this February by OR Books.

Q.  With all the large social issues that Occupy and Strike Debt have raised, why add climate change to the mix?

A.  Well, Strike Debt focuses on all kinds of debt: medical debt, housing debt, credit card debt. We started the Rolling Jubilee. We really wanted to publicize how the secondary debt market worked. A lot of people didn’t know how cheaply their debts have been sold. How lenders are willing to sell your debt cheaply — but not to you. Knowing how cheaply your debt has been bought by the person who is trying to collect from you changes the dynamic. We hoped to raise $50,000, and now we’ve raised about $630,000 — and abolished $15 million worth of debt.

What changed is, Hurricane Sandy happened. A lot of Strike Debt people became involved in Occupy Sandy. It drove home links we’d been talking about when we did the Strike Debt report. People were waiting for their FEMA loans and these predatory banks were circling around them.

Climate debt isn’t a part of the political discourse, but climate debt needs to be honored and repaid. It’s unusual compared to other kinds of debt because it tends to be the more affluent populations that are the debtors.

Q. And what are you moving towards?

A. International legal recognition. We’re trying to get high-carbon countries to acknowledge their responsibility.

At the U.N., the term of choice is “climate aid,” which suggests that this is an act of benevolence on their part. They avoid anything that smacks of responsibility.

The decision to fast track climate financing by $30 billion in the three years after Copenhagen [PDF] is where it gets complicated. We should finance clean energy technology in developing countries, but in doing so, most of the emissions debt that we owe them is being paid back to us through their emissions cuts. And most of our carbon reductions so far have come from hyrdofracking for gas or from reduced industrial activity during the depression. There’s a lot of slick accounting going on.

These emissions developments are a denial to poor countries of their atmospheric space. To fully acknowledge carbon debt is to acknowledge that it is the cause of climate change in the world.

Q. Like, I feel guilty when I fly somewhere, but I still do it anyway.

A. Oh, don’t feel that.

Q. No?

A. One of the favorite things of really guilty people is to make people feel ashamed individually. I see a similar thing with climate debt. The people who are the most responsible get a pass, and the costs get passed on to us as individuals and the guilt gets devolved individually rather than being laid at the door of those responsible. That’s something that needs to be resisted.

Q. Do you remember if there was any disagreement in putting a climate change chapter into the handbook?

A. The first edition of The Debt Resistors’ Handbook was put together very quickly. Now it’s being expanded.  I don’t think there was any debate about whether to include climate debt.

What happens in an environmental disaster is that the patterns of injustice in our cities become exposed for all to see. The damage is inflicted on the most vulnerable. It takes its toll economically. Battery Park City — these high-end condos  – didn’t even lose their electricity. Now there is this whole debate about the waterfront. What will happen to Zone A? Not just here, but around the world.

Q. Who else is thinking about this?

A. It’s talked about a lot, back to the ’70s and The Limits to Growth. You could see the last 30-40 years of wealth redistribution as a form of hoarding in the face of climate change.

The People’s Summit in Cochabamba called it an “Adaptation Fund.” The IMF  and the World Bank are on board with climate change. But I don’t find them putting any pressure on high climate emitters.

The initial premise of ecological debt was introduced leading up to 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio as a reason for cancelling IMF/World Bank debt. We have five centuries of ecological debt there — extraction of resources. The slave trade. External debts owed to northern states. A lot of that stuff is difficult to quantify.

What you can quantify is carbon debt. There is fairly accurate data from 1750 onwards on emissions. It wasn’t really until Copenhagen that the climate justice movement picked it up.

Q. And so, is the U.S. the biggest emitter?

A. Well, If you break it down per capita, the U.K. is a little greater.

Q. Why?

A.They started the Industrial Revolution a little earlier. They’ve been going at it ever since. We’re the second largest. Germany and Australia are third and fourth. China is the largest emitter now, but they started emitting more recently. If you factor in their history, China is a creditor, not a debtor.

Some say the nation/state framework is the wrong way to look at things. The debts owed are also internal — within the borders of nation states. There are elites within these countries that have profited greatly from resource extraction and the carbon economy.

Q. How would you evenly distribute it, then?

A. That’s one of the problems that’s always at the heart of foreign aid. How do you make sure the money and aid get to the people who need it?

One of the things I argue for is that the system of distribution could be done based on income — the carbon tax goes into a central fund and is paid out.

Q. How did you get interested in this subject personally?

A. I have been writing about this for a while. My last book, Bird on Fire, was about Phoenix, Ariz. [Editor's note: We spoke to Ross about the book last year.] There is an issue there with climate migrants — a lot of the folks who cross borders are economic refugees, displaced by the effects of climate change.

What rights are they due when they reach this country? This is a way that this debate about climate enters the borders of our nation state.

But there is no international legal recognition of what a climate migrant is. They are the most tangible evidence of climate change and we will see a lot more of them. Arizona is a case in point. It’s getting warmer and drier faster than anywhere else in the hemisphere.

Even if we cut our emissions we’re still locked in for a certain amount of climate change. What we can do now is plan for resilience. Which is unfortunate. It does mean that a lot of people have given up on stopping climate change and are focusing on fortifying, shoring up, defending.
Heather Smith (on Twitter, @strangerworks) is interested in the various ways that humans try to save the environment: past, present, and future. (

Agelbert NOTE: Who knows, maybe somebody out there liked the article(s) I have written on the 1% and their liability for this mess. I hope it catches on.

The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World (
Title: 19 Year Old Boyan Slat Invents Cleanup System For Plastic Choking Our Oceans
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2013, 10:47:51 pm
19-Year-Old Aerospace Student Boyan Slat Invents Cleanup System For Plastic Choking Our Oceans

19-year-old Boyan Slat’s impassioned and educated opinion reminds us that youth, with its promising vital force, often taps into genius. If he is correct, Slat has designated some flair for environmental cleanup. He believes with his idea, developed for a student project in Aerospace Engineering, that it is possible the dreadful plastic that is choking the oceans (poisoning animals and human food chains) can thoroughly clean itself in 5 years – that is a lot less than the 79,000 years of another estimate.

Ocean Cleanup Array. Image Credit: Boyan Slat

Plastic once seemed as a piece of the revolution for a positive future. Presently, however, plastic has multiplied to an unfathomable degree, and as in the science fiction novel mention below, increasing development of plastic is now a twin-edged point of contention.

It reminds me of the War with the Newts, a 1936 satirical science fiction novel by Czech author Karel Čapek, but with plastic replacing the Newts in this novel. Plastic certainly is, in only a few decades, taking over the world. Increases found in the most vulnerable of systems, the globe’s water systems, result in numbers such as 7.25 million tons, and graphic images such as 1000 Eiffel towers (of plastic garbage) floating in water.

Some of the most notable places studied where plastic pollution is evident is in the giant trash gyres (trash vortexes) floating in the oceans. These plastic garbage patches have been written about, and vilified, by many, but that has also served as an excellent visual aid for spurring people to action about plastics, recycling, and waste in general.

Ocean Cleanup Array. Image Credit: Boyan Slat

79,000 Years of Cleanup to an Efficient 5 Years

Check out Slat’s The Ocean Cleanup for more details on his plans to clean up the ocean at an incredible speed. Boyan explains how he envisions shortening a projection of 79,000 years of cleanup to an efficient 5 years. (

And definitely watch this Ted talk below and learn about a future that he considers viable. I believe that as much as the Baby Boomers had their ideals, the best thing they did was give life to younger generations that have a working pragmatism, scientific curiosity, and a healthy dose of idealism.


The Younger Generation is THINKING WELL!  ( (
Title: What You Learned In Grade School Is Not Working Anymore
Post by: AGelbert on November 23, 2013, 01:26:05 am

Blue Gold: World Water Wars: Official Full Length Film‏
Next World TV
Common Sense Solutions - Starting Now

The Politics And Privitization Of Water

What You Learned In Grade School Is Not Working Anymore

Personally, I was expecting a well produced environmental film about the polluted state of our water.

It's much deeper than that. Blue Gold is about many aspects of the world's fresh water crisis, but the most unexpected and alarming part is the politics of our declining resources and the privitization of water. Multinational corporations are buying up the world's fresh water. Riots leading to revolutions are already happening where the population insists on defending their water rights.

You will learn why the lessons you were taught in grade school about how the water cycling through our atmosphere will never run out, is theoretically true, but not what the situation is today.

The earth is desertifying at an alarming rate. We are pumping 15 times more water up from the ground than is returning into it.

How does that happen? The film educates us about fascinating geological changes, and explains how we got to this point.

And did you know how damaging dams are to the whole eco-system?

Vandana Shiva says: "A river is the lifeblood of an eco-system just like the veins and arteries bring blood to every part of pour organism. When we have choked arteries that's whats called as heart attack. A dam is the chocking of the artery."

This film should be seen by every citizen of the world. Pass it around!

--Bibi Farber

For more info, see: for a list of organizations you can join or support in fighting water wars.

Renewable Revolution (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 29, 2013, 02:30:03 pm
Title: Loathsome List of Externalized Costs
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2013, 11:18:22 pm
And now for a Loathsome List of Externalized Costs, MOSTLY from FOSSIL FUELS and NUCLEAR RADIONCLIDE POISONS.  :P The chemical industry also continues to contribute to the TOXIC MESS our "civilization" is making of the biosphere. :(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 12, 2013, 03:58:19 pm

Wetlands going up in smoke. It's Criminal and stupid  ( to make biomass pellets from hardwood forests when duckweed ( ,hemp,  switchgrass, willow brush and a host of other fast growing species of plants can supply this biomass renewably.  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2013, 12:47:19 am

The Shale-Oil Boom's Dirty Secret

The US produces 7.8 million barrels of oil a day. Of this, the EIA estimates that 29 percent comes from shale oil formations. Production from these wells declines 60-70 percent in the first year alone. To maintain current production, the US needs to drill 6,000 new wells per year at a cost of $35 billion a year.

On the other hand, solar is on pace to produce over 5,300 MW of solar this year --enough to power 885,600 average American households. The average price of solar has also dropped 60% since 2011, and the average cost of a completed PV system is $3.05/W. Most solar electric systems last 30 years and pay for themselves in 4-5 years.

What if we spent $35 billion on solar instead of shale oil wells? The US could produce nearly 11,500 MW of new clean energy every year. We could power over 11.2 million new homes by 2020, and produce 28 percent of all California energy by 2020.

Infographic created by Aven Satre-Meloy

Learn More:(at link below)

Mosaic President Billy Parish on the fastest way to 100% clean energy.

Get the scoop on impact investing.

Why you should care about crowdfunding.

How to find good investments.
Title: Honor The Earth: Triple Crown of Pipeline Rides
Post by: AGelbert on December 26, 2013, 03:25:13 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 28, 2013, 03:24:51 pm

US EPA Nails Fracker With Record Fine   ( (

( Energy's "PLAY"-ground toxify the USA areas  (

The woes just keep piling up for Chesapeake Energy. The company is front and center in the nation’s natural gas fracking boom and it just got hit with one of the largest ever civil penalties for violating Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The penalty was levied against its subsidiary, Chesapeake Appalachia LLC.

Wait, what? We thought the fracking industry was notoriously exempt from the Clean Water Act, thanks to a loophole engineered back in 2005 by former Vice President (and former Halliburton oil company executive) Dick Cheney.

So, how’d they do that?

EPA nails Chesapeake Energy for clean water violations    ( (

Fracking And The Clean Water Act

Fracking is an unconventional gas and oil drilling method that involves pumping vast quantities of a chemical brine deep underground, to shake deposits loose from shale formations.

Though natural gas is billed as a clean alternative to coal and oil, fracking has been linked to a raft of local pollution issues, and emissions of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) from drilling sites may be wiping out any advantage that natural gas has as a fuel.

The Clean Water loophole makes it almost impossible to gather direct evidence that traces fracking to a growing list of water contamination episodes, though the link between fracking waste disposal and earthquakes is becoming beyond dispute.

Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has been doggedly pursuing other avenues to bring fracking companies to account for environmental damage, and one of them is the Clean Water Act’s Section 404.

In announcing the action against Chesapeake last week, EPA described the alleged violations like this:

The federal government and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) allege that the company impounded streams and discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other fill material into streams and wetlands without a federal permit in order to construct well pads, impoundments, road crossings and other facilities related to natural gas extraction.

See what they just did? Section 404 does not apply directly to fracking brine, which is exempt from federal disclosure regulations under the Clean Water Act. It covers general construction activity common across a wide range of industries. (

Evidently Chesapeake Energy saw the writing on the wall. Some of the violations were discovered by its own internal audit and the company has been working with EPA since 2010 to comply with remediation orders.

The settlement includes an estimated payment of $6.5 million to restore 27 sites in West Virginia, 16 of which involved fracking operations. It also includes a civil penalty of $3.2 million, which EPA describes as “one of the largest ever levied by the federal government for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), under the Section 404 program.”

Fracking In The Headlines Again

For those of you keeping score at home, the EPA announcement follows a string of bad press for the fracking industry and Chesapeake.

Just this past August, Bloomberg News reported that oil and gas land deals have fallen off the cliff, indicating that the natural gas boom is turning into one whopper of a bust (it could turn around if the Obama Administration opens up the export market, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms).

As for Chesapeake Energy, this year the company settled with a group of homeowners in Greenbrier, Arkansas for damages from earthquakes, which were linked to fracking waste disposal by the US Geological Survey.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been pursuing the Ponzi-like financial angle of the fracking boom, and in June 2012 he won a “landmark agreement” with Chesapeake Appalachia to renegotiate more than 4,400 leases in New York State.

Also last year, Bloomberg reported that Chesapeake Energy paid a tax rate of less than one percent on profits of $5.5 billion,  legendary investor T. Boone Pickens dumped his Chesapeake stock, and an in-depth report in Rolling Stone compared Chesapeake’s land “flipping” practices to the ongoing mortgage crisis.

This is just a random sample so feel free to add your Chesapeake story to the comment thread.


Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. You can also follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.

Agelbert NOTE: I am CERTAIN that ALEC is busy writing "Clean Water Act IMPROVEMENT" legislation  (
to exempt frackers from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The profit over planet bastards are quite predictable.  >:( :P
Title: Woke up
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2013, 12:16:42 am
Title: Texas Supreme Court Favors Landowner Over TransCanada in Keystone XL!
Post by: AGelbert on January 09, 2014, 04:04:41 pm

Texas Supreme Court Favors Landowner Over TransCanada in Keystone XL Eminent Domain Case

Tar Sands Blockade | January 9, 2014 9:33 am

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of landowner Julia Trigg Crawford, ordering

TransCanada to submit information by Feb. 6 as the justices weigh arguments to hear the case regarding eminent domain abuse.

The controversial clause of eminent domain benefits oil and gas companies trying to seize private land to extract or transport fossil fuels. Photo credit: Tar Sands Blockade

Texas’s highest court delivered a clear victory for pipeline opponents and landowners fighting TransCanada’s overreach on property rights. At the heart of Crawford’s case is the ability of TransCanada, a foreign corporation, to use eminent domain under the state’s “common carrier” clause since their pipeline transports 90 percent Canadian tar sands and 10 percent North Dakota oil. There is no on ramp for Texas oil therefore violating the definition of a common carrier under Texas law.

Crawford said she looks forward to her family’s day in court, “As a landowner, property rights are key to my livelihood and family legacy. A foreign corporation pumping foreign oil simply does not qualify as a common carrier under Texas law. TransCanada does not get to write their own rules. I look forward to the Supreme Court hearing our case and our plea to protect the fundamental rights of property owners.”

The ruling on Wednesday from the Texas Supreme Court means that Crawford will be able to take the next step in the appeals process against TransCanada. The southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, also known as Gulf Coast Segment, stretches from Cushing, OK, to Beaumont, TX, and carries tar sands or dilbit which is a combination of tar sands and chemicals that react very differently when spills occur than traditional Texas oil.

“We’re thrilled, because the Supreme Court has finally ruled in favor of us—the little guys—and against a foreign oil giant,”
  ;D  Julia Trigg Crawford continued. “Basically, TransCanada said that it wanted a waiver from responding to our petition, and the Supreme Court said, ‘No, you must respond’.”   (

Crawford says her case has broad implications, because if she wins, TransCanada and other foreign oil companies will no longer be able to use eminent domain to seize land for their private profit without direct proof their pipeline is carrying Texan oil.

Visit EcoWatch’s KEYSTONE XL and TAR SANDS pages for more related news on this topic. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 09, 2014, 06:15:44 pm

8 Sickening Facts About Flame Retardants

December 11, 2013 
By Dr. Mercola

Your couch cushions, your child’s car seat, your carpeting, and your mattress all have a toxic secret in common.  >:(

They probably contain flame-retardant chemicals that have been linked to serious health risks like cancer, birth defects, neurodevelopmental delays in children, and more.

How these chemicals have grown to become so ubiquitous is a story of great deception, power and greed, with the chemical industry and Big Tobacco at the helm. As reported in an investigative series “Playing With Fire” by the Chicago Tribune:1

“The average American baby is born with 10 fingers, 10 toes and the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world
. The toxic chemicals are present in nearly every home, packed into couches, chairs and many other products.  :P

Two powerful industries — Big Tobacco and chemical manufacturers — waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation of these chemicals, which don’t even work as promised.”  ???

Eight Facts About Flame Retardants That Might Shock You

HBO recently aired a documentary, Toxic Hot Seat, which is based on the Chicago Tribune’s comprehensive investigation. You can watch the trailer above. The film highlights some of the most disturbing facts about flame-retardant chemicals, which were summed up by Rodale News.2 As you read through them, you’ll see how the use of flame-retardant chemicals is easily among the major toxic cover-ups in the US.  >:(

1. Studies Have Proven Their Harm

It’s estimated that 90 percent of Americans have some level of flame-retardant chemicals in their bodies, and the chemicals are also known to accumulate in breast milk.

This alone is highly disturbing because many studies have linked them to human health risks including infertility, birth defects, lower IQ scores, behavioral problems in children, and liver, kidney, testicular, and breast cancers.

2. Flame Retardants Produce More Toxic Smoke

If an object doused in flame retardants catches fire (yes, they can still catch fire), it gives off higher levels of carbon monoxide, soot, and smoke than untreated objects. Ironically, these three things are more likely to kill a person in a fire than burns, which means flame-retardant chemicals may actually make fires more deadly.

Flame-retardant chemicals belong to the same class of chemicals as DDT and PCBs (organohalogens), and like the former, they, too, build up in the environment. These chemicals also react with other toxins as they burn to produce cancer-causing dioxins and furans.

3. Banned from Children’s Pajamas but Still Widely Used in Furniture and Baby Products

A flame-retardant chemical known as chlorinated tris (TDCPP) was removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s amid concerns that it may cause cancer, but now it’s a ubiquitous addition to couch cushions across the United States.

It can easily migrate from the foam and into your household dust, which children often pick up on their hands and transfer into their mouths. Tris is actually the most commonly used flame retardant in the US today, used in nap mats, car seats, strollers, nursing pillows, furniture, and more.

4. Female Fire Fighters in California Have Six Times More Breast Cancer

Female firefighters aged 40 to 50 are six times more likely to develop breast cancer than the national average, likely due to California’s early use of flame-retardant chemicals. Firefighters of both genders also have higher rates of cancer, in part because of the high levels of dioxins and furans they’re exposed to when flame-retardant chemicals burn.

According to one firefighter in the HBO documentary:3 “It's Love Canal, and it's on fire… These fires that we're going to now are an absolute toxic soup.”

5. Flame-Retardant Chemicals Provide No Benefit for People

The chemical industry claims that fire-retardant furniture increases escape time in a fire by 15-fold. In reality, this claim came from a study using powerful, NASA-style flame retardants, which did give an extra 15 seconds of escape time.

This is not the same type of chemical used in most furniture, and government and independent studies show that the most widely used flame-retardant chemicals provide no benefit for people while increasing the amounts of toxic chemicals in smoke.

Drops in fire-related deaths in recent decades are not related to the use of flame-retardant chemicals, but instead are due to newer construction codes, sprinkler systems, fire alarms, and self-extinguishing cigarettes.

6. Big Tobacco Was Instrumental in the Spread of Flame-Retardant Chemicals (

Flame-retardant chemicals were developed in the 1970s, when 40 percent of Americans smoked and cigarettes were a major cause of fires. The tobacco industry, under increasing pressure to make fire-safe cigarettes, resisted the push for self-extinguishing cigarettes and instead created a fake front group called the National Association of State Fire Marshals. The group pushed for federal standards for fire-retardant furniture…  ;)

7. California’s Misguided Fire Safety Law Led to Countrywide Use of These Toxic Chemicals  >:(

In 1975, California Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) was passed. It requires furniture sold in California to withstand a 12-second exposure to a small flame without igniting. Because of California's economic importance, the requirement has essentially become a national standard, with manufacturers dousing their furniture with the chemicals whether they're going to be sold in California or elsewhere in the States. As reported by Rodale News:

“Sadly, though the original author of TB117 had specifically included language requiring that any chemical used to make furniture fire resistant be safe for human health, politicians removed that language before the law went into effect.”

8. The Chemical Industry Has Spent Millions to Keep TB117 in Place  (

Numerous bills in California have been introduced that would update TB117 to state that toxic chemicals were no longer required for furniture, but the deep-pocketed chemical industry has defeated them each time.

The industry even went so far as to hire Dr. David Heimback, a burn expert and star witness for the manufacturers of flame retardants, told the tragic story of a 7-week-old baby who was burned in a fire and died as a result, three weeks later, after suffering immensely. ( fire was said to have been started by a candle that ignited a pillow that lacked flame retardant chemicals, where the baby lay. (  ( 

The story was heard by California lawmakers, who were deciding on a bill that could have reduced the use of flame retardant chemicals in furniture. The problem, as we detailed in a previous article, was that the entire story was a clever hoax, a complete fabrication, from beginning to end!   :o ???   (

Do You Have a Choice About the Flame Retardants Used in Your Furniture and Mattress?

Given the outdated regulations in place about the use of flame-retardant chemicals in consumer products, it’s quite difficult to avoid these toxic chemicals because of their abundant use in household goods and even in the foam insulation used in your walls. Research published in Environmental Science & Technology revealed that 85 percent of couch foam samples tested contained chemical flame retardants.4 The samples came from more than 100 couches purchased from 1985 to 2010.

As of July 1, 2007, all US mattresses are required to be highly flame retardant, to the extent that they won't catch on fire if exposed to a blowtorch.  ::) This means that the manufacturers are dousing them with highly toxic flame-retardant chemicals, which do NOT have to be disclosed in any way.  :P This is probably the most important piece of furniture you want to get right, as you are spending about one-third of your life on it.

However, you can have a licensed health care provider write you a prescription for a chemical-free mattress, which can then be ordered without flame retardants from certain retailers. You can also find certain natural mattresses on the market that don’t contain them. For instance, our wool mattress does not have flame-retardant chemicals added because wool is a natural flame retardant.

Good News! Safer Furniture May Be Coming in 2014

Given the blatant dangers posed by flame retardants, in late November 2013 California’s governor ordered that TB117 be rewritten to ensure fire safety without the use of these chemicals. Starting in January 2014, furniture manufacturers will begin producing furniture that’s not required to use flame-retardant chemicals, and full compliance is expected by January 2015.

Unfortunately, the updated law only states that the chemicals are no longer required; it doesn’t ban them outright. This means that some companies may continue to use them, and if you’re in the market for new furniture, you’ll need to ask for that made without flame-retardant chemicals.

Tips for Reducing Your Exposure to Flame-Retardant Chemicals

Even with California’s revised law, these chemicals are still widely used. Plus, unless you’ve revamped your home using only natural, chemical-free materials, they’re likely lurking in your home right now. Until these chemicals are removed from use entirely, tips you can use to reduce your exposure around your home include:5

•Be especially careful with polyurethane foam products manufactured prior to 2005, such as upholstered furniture, mattresses, and pillows, as these are most likely to contain flame retardants called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs. If you have any of these in your home, inspect them carefully and replace ripped covers and/or any foam that appears to be breaking down. Also, avoid reupholstering furniture by yourself, as the reupholstering process increases your risk of exposure.

•Older carpet padding is another major source of PBDEs, so take precautions when removing old carpet. You'll want to isolate your work area from the rest of your house to avoid spreading it around, and use a HEPA filter vacuum to clean up.

•You probably also have older sources of the PBDEs known as Deca in your home as well, and these are so toxic they are banned in several states. Deca PBDEs can be found in electronics like TVs, cell phones, kitchen appliances, fans, toner cartridges, and more. It's a good idea to wash your hands after handling such items, especially before eating, and at the very least be sure you don't let infants mouth any of these items (like your TV remote control or cell phone).

•As you replace PBDE-containing items around your home, select those that contain naturally less flammable materials, such as leather, wool, and cotton.

•Look for organic and "green" building materials, carpeting, baby items, mattresses, and upholstery, which will be free from these toxic chemicals and help reduce your overall exposure. Furniture products filled with cotton, wool, or polyester tend to be safer than chemical-treated foam; some products also state that they are "flame-retardant free."

•PBDEs are often found in household dust, so clean up with a HEPA-filter vacuum and/or a wet mop often.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 10, 2014, 06:54:17 pm

Feather in his cap-and-trade: Brown pledges polluter fees to poor communities  (

By Brentin Mock

While free-market environmentalists push cap-and-trade systems as a panacea for climate change worries, many in the environmental justice community have yet to buy into it. Their reasons for this vary, but one major concern is that there’s little guarantee that overburdened communities won’t still catch the brunt of industrial pollution. What stops billionaire companies like ExxonMobil from continuing to pollute poor communities if, rather than rein in their emissions under the established cap, they can simply purchase more permits to pollute?

When California started its cap-and-trade system in late 2011, lawmakers addressed these concerns by requiring 25 percent of all revenue from permit auctions to go toward programs that help disadvantaged communities. Also, 10 percent of the revenue would have to be spent directly in those communities. But last year, when the auction dividends started rolling in, Gov. Jerry Brown reneged on that deal, putting $500 million from the permit auction profits into the state’s rainy day fund.

This obviously didn’t endear many environmental justice activists to the cap-and-trade dream.

The governor is on the path to redemption, though. When he unveiled his budget Thursday, it included plans to not only pay back $100 million of what he “borrowed” from cap-and-trade fees, but also a pledge to make some much needed investments in low-income communities across the state.

“It is encouraging that the governor agrees with the 83 percent of Californians polled who say that these revenues should be directed to communities hardest hit by last century’s carbon pollution generated by fossil fuel companies,”( Miya Yosh itani, executive director of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, said in a press statement.

“Based on what’s been reported, the governor is making critical investments in existing programs that will help disadvantaged communities cope with the worst impacts of the climate crisis, while at the same time creating jobs and saving low-income consumers money,” said Vien Truong, Environmental Equity program director of the Greenlining Institute in Berkeley. “This will bring real benefits to communities hit first and worst by pollution and climate change as well as the recession.”

Of the $850 million available from new polluter fees, said Truong, roughly $600 million will be spent on improving public transit, energy efficiency programs, renewable energy, and urban forestry projects that can provide jobs for youth of color.

But, as is always the case with budget negotiations, the devil is in the details. Consider the $200 million from the fees is supposed to go to low-carbon transportation initiatives. Some of that will go to greening the trucks that serve commercial ports in places like Long Beach and Oakland. As thousands of trucks run in and out of these ports, and idle in traffic as they pass through cities, they spray asthma-causing soot.

California has a fund for greening commercial trucks, but it’s been empty for a while now. The Greenlining Institute is asking for $30 million out of the new budget for the purchase of hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses throughout the state.

But some of that low-carbon money is also committed for rebates for purchasers of electric vehicles — a perk much less likely to benefit residents of low-income communities. Legislators will have to work out how much of the $200 million will go to each of these line items. That process — and the rest of the state’s budget wrangling — won’t be finished until June, at the earliest.

Still, if Brown’s proposed funding for low-income communities survives the legislative process, this could be a game-changer, proving that it is possible to design cap-and-trade programs to take into account communities that bear the brunt of  industrial pollution. Time will tell.

I’m curious to hear from environmental justice advocates who aren’t sold on cap-and-trade — especially those in living with the system in the Northeast — if you think that Brown’s proposal could adequately address your concerns. After all, as goes California, so goes the country. While cap-and-trade has been a non-starter in Congress so far, I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of it. ( (


Brentin Mock is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who writes regularly for Grist about environmental justice issues and the connections between environmental policy, race, and politics. Follow him on Twitter at @brentinmock.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 10, 2014, 09:48:51 pm]
3 Billion liters of embalming fluid in the USA (never mind the metals and concrete) is stupid and unsustainable. :emthdown:
I like the Minnesota Mayo clinic approach. ;D
Title: Romanians Resisting Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2014, 03:58:10 pm
Title: Amazon Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2014, 03:59:40 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 18, 2014, 03:40:53 pm
Letter from Beijing: Pollution turns out to be great leveler in China’s capital

January 17

By Stuart Leavenworth

McClatchy Foreign Staff

BEIJING — Even before the sun started to rise Thursday over this megalopolis of 21 million people, I could sense it would be a miserable lung day. The apartment where my wife and I were staying seemed smoky – even though we don’t smoke. Out the window, the lights from nearby skyscrapers were enveloped in a gray cloud.

When the sun rose, it was obvious – Beijing’s “airpocalypse” had returned. I could barely see the 4th Ring Road, the freeway that hums with cars and trucks just 100 yards from our building. Checking an app, I saw that particulate levels in Beijing had soared above 670 micrograms per cubic meter, or about 26 times higher than the World Health Organization considers safe.

China has many challenges, but air pollution is one that, if left unaddressed, will surely trip up its economic growth, kill its people and derail the Communist Party’s policy of “opening up” to the world. Tourism in Beijing has dropped from a year ago, at least partly because of worldwide publicity about smog. A recent study estimated that the average life expectancy in North China had dropped by 5.5 years because of air pollution generated by coal power production. (

Last year, Beijing-like bouts of smog spread across the eastern and northern parts of the country, smothering cities such as Shanghai, whose residents thought they were immune. Wealthy Chinese now regularly schedule “lung-cleaning trips,” with Thailand’s Phuket Island and Indonesia’s Bali as top destinations, according to Chinese tourism authorities.

It is not as if China doesn’t recognize the threat. The government says it has pledged to spend $1.7 billion yuan ($281 million) by 2017 to tackle air pollution. Local governments have closed factories, fined polluters and even closed freeways on days when the smog is dangerous or “beyond index.”

The official position is that the problem is caused primarily by weather inversions, auto emissions and coal burning (industrial and residential), and all that is true. Yet as a country where there is little rule of law, China has no comprehensive system of monitoring, permitting and regulating sources of air pollution. Unlike most environmental agencies in the United States, it can’t track a pollution problem back to its source or sources and correct it.(             
( (

On Thursday, I noticed the recommendation by the U.S. Embassy in China that people stay indoors and avoid any strenuous activity. But I didn’t have that option, and neither did millions of other working people here. I had interviews lined up on stories, and properties to inspect in our search for a permanent apartment. And so I set forth to the subway, wearing my N-95 face mask for the first time during our first week in Beijing.

By the time I reached the central business district and started exiting the subway, I felt dizzy. I grabbed the handrail to steady myself. I drank some water, felt better and then walked a few blocks to where I was meeting my assistant, Tiantian. By then, my mask was already speckled with soot.

As the day went on, the pollution decreased, but I could feel the effects of the cumulative exposure. My chest felt heavy, my throat was raspy and my nose was runny all afternoon. I walked through Ritan Park, where elegant older women were dancing, some wearing face masks.

I have little doubt that China will eventually clean up its air, and little doubt the government could accelerate the cleanup with a sustained commitment.

Yet China and elements of its state-controlled media still suffer from denial when it comes to air pollution. Last month, during a major smog bout outside of Beijing, a story on the website of China Central Television listed five benefits of the air pollution problem:

1. It unifies the Chinese people.  (

2. It makes China more equal.  (

3. It raises citizen awareness of the cost of China’s economic development.(

4. It makes people funnier.  (

5. It makes people more knowledgeable (of things like meteorology and the English word haze). (

I feel more equal already.   ( (

Leavenworth became McClatchy’s Beijing bureau chief earlier this month. Email:; Twitter: @sleavenworth

Read more here: (

Agelbert NOTE: The fossil fuelers in China have the same problem they have all over the world; they CANNOT envision a world where GDP growth DOESN'T track fossil fuel burning growth. With that attitude, the only GROWTH industries they are going to get are CANCER treatment and pollution filtering devices.

China's leaders are willfully blinding themselves simply because they BELIEVE in the "glory" of predatory capitalism and KNOW GOD DAMNED GOOD AND WELL that the smog will kill the poor and middle class who can't afford protection FIRST. This is EXTERNALIZING costs on STEROIDS. It is DIVIDING the people, not "unifying" them.

They will learn, as we will, the HARD way. Reality is a **** for these ORWELLIAN circular logic bull**** artists. Fossil fuels are POISON, not prosperity. But the death worshippers at Wall Street are probably salivating at all the profits to be had from the face mask and anti-pollution filtration equipment on the cars and houses of the wealthy! After, all, THEY are the ony ones that COUNT because THE RICH, being such HARD WORKING (i.e. money grabbing) folks, can afford the COMFORT (i.e. survival of the "fittest" -> meanest, cruelest, conscience free bastards) that fossil fuel caused GDP GROWTH (i.e. pollution poisons) REQUIRES.    ( (

January 2015 MKing Corporation outdoor clothing style catalog for the Chinese people that COUNT (*

Newest luxury back pack mixes Oxycontin with oxygen for a "spiritual" experience while watching giant traffic jams through your megapixel IR viewer.  (

*Raising visor in photo is for demonstration purposes only and  is not recommended outdoors. Raising visor outdoors may result in coverage cancellation of the Executive Golden Parachute Viper Cradle to Grave Comprehensive Total Coverage  Health Insurance Plan.  (

( ( MKING APEX PREDATOR CLOTHING LLC All Rights Rapaciously Reserved.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 20, 2014, 08:59:06 pm

What You Can Do Right Now

Our “disposable culture” has left a trail of destruction, in terms of both environmental and human impact. >:(  There is no one single solution to the waste problem. But you can do your part by taking steps to reduce your waste, recycle, and repurpose what you can. The average American produces 4.5 pounds of garbage each and every day. Surely, most people can find ways to cut that down considerably, without going through too much trouble. Here are some suggestions to get you started:

•Compost your food scraps and yard waste: A simple bin in your backyard can greatly cut down on your landfill contributions while rewarding you with a natural fertilizer for your soil. See “Composting Made Easy—Even for City Dwellers” to learn more.

•Reduce plastic use: Purchase products that are not made from or packaged in plastic. Use reusable shopping bags for groceries. Bring your own mug when indulging in a coffee drink — and skip the lid and the straw. Bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles, instead of buying bottled water. Store foods in the freezer in glass mason jars as opposed to plastic bags. Take your own leftover container to restaurants. Request no plastic wrap on your newspaper and dry cleaning.

These are just a few ideas — I’m sure you can think of more.

•Recycle and repurpose what you can:Take care to recycle and repurpose products whenever possible. This includes separating paper, glass, and plastic for recycling. Give clothes or gently used household items to charities, and frequent second-hand stores instead of buying new. Make use of online sites like that allow you to give products you no longer need away to others instead of throwing them away.

Here are some ideas for what to do with more hard-to-recycle items:

◦Appliances: Salvation Army or the Steel Recycling Institute can help you out with these (see

◦Compact fluorescent light bulbs: Your local Ace Hardware, Home Depot and IKEA store will recycle them. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also lists recycling facilities across the US.7

◦Eyeglasses: Your local Lion’s Club or eye care chain may collect these for redistribution to people in need. Many eyeglass stores offer drop-off boxes as well.

◦Tennis shoes: Nike’s Reuse-a-Shoe program8 turns old shoes into playground and athletic flooring.

•Choose reusable over single-use: This includes non-disposable razors, washable feminine hygiene products for women, cloth diapers, glass bottles for your milk, cloth grocery bags, handkerchiefs instead of paper tissues, an old t-shirt or rags in lieu of paper towels, and so on.

•Assist Recovery: Return deposits on bottles and other plastic products, and participate in “plastic drives” for local schools, where cash is paid by the pound.

•Support local “greening” efforts: Support legislative efforts to manage waste in your community; take a leadership role with your company, school, and neighborhood.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2014, 06:15:19 pm
Mushrooms Used for Bioremediation to Clean Pesticides From Oregon Waterways (

Beyond Pesticides  | January 23, 2014 3:15 pm

Putting ideas into action, an Oregon-based restoration nonprofit group, Ocean Blue Project, is harnessing the power of mushrooms to clean up pesticides and other pollutants that plague Oregon and national waterways. Yes, mushrooms.
Pleurotus ostreatus, the oyster mushroom is edible.  ;D
These oyster mushroom have the filtering potential to break down oil, pesticides and harmful bacteria.

The test project launched Sunday, Jan. 19 on the banks of Sequoia Creek, a tributary to the Willamette River. Using recycled burlap bags filled with used coffee grounds, straw and yellow oyster mushroom spawn, the purpose of the unusual potpourri will be to harness the extremely effective filtering capabilities of mycelium.

A kind of root system for fungi, mycelium demonstrate a wide variety of biological powers, from breaking down oil, pesticides and harmful bacteria to acting as natural pesticides against some of the most problematic pests.

Paul Stamets, ( a leading expert on the power of mushrooms and former speaker at Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum in 2006, has a word for the natural properties of fungi to fight human-made pollution: mycorestoration. As Mr. Stamets explained to Discover Magazine in 2013, “Oyster mushrooms, for example, can digest the complex hydrocarbons in wood, so they can also be used to break down petroleum byproducts. Garden Giants use their mycelia to trap and eat bacteria, so they can filter E. coli from agricultural runoff.”

Richard Arterbury, president of the Ocean Blue Project, agrees. Mr. Arterbury explained to reporters at Corvallis Gazette-Times, that the technique could potentially be a low-cost way to use biologic processes to reduce pollution in waterways. Mr. Arterbury thinks the project has huge potential. “If you put enough of these bags by the Willamette River it could potentially change the river,” he said.

Pesticides in Water

And change is needed not just in Oregon. Waterways in the U.S. are increasingly imperiled from various agents, including agricultural and industrial discharges, nutrient loading (nitrogen and phosphorus), and biological agents such as pathogens. Pesticides discharged into our nation’s rivers, lakes and streams can harm or kill fish and amphibians.

These toxicants have the potential to accumulate in the fish we eat and the water we drink. As pesticide use escalates and waterways and drinking water become increasingly polluted with unregulated contaminants like pesticides and other toxicants, low-cost and natural alternatives for restoring waterways are desperately needed.

Discussing innovative new practices and alternatives to address pesticide contamination will be just one of the many exciting topics at this year’s 32nd National Pesticide Forum, Advancing Sustainable Communities: People, Pollinators and Practices. Please join Beyond Pesticides, Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides and Portland State University’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions April 11-12, 2014 in Portland, OR, to help communities everywhere make strides in reducing pesticides and moving communities everywhere towards a more sustainable future. 

Visit EcoWatch’s BIODIVERSITY and WATER pages for more related news on this topic.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2014, 10:15:26 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 26, 2014, 03:41:26 pm
Drilling for oil may someday, due to global biosphere damage caused by it, be the new and improved ROOT OF ALL EVIL  (
Title: Taters Ain't what they SHOULD BE...
Post by: AGelbert on January 27, 2014, 04:32:01 pm
Little Elise wanted to see vines grow from a potato, but after trying for three weeks, she figured something was wrong. Then she experimented with an organic potato. Watch out!

This sweet yet profound video is perfect for sending around to anyone who still thinks conventionally grown produce is REAL food.

Video (2:32)
This Video should be FRONT PAGE NEWS all over the internet and the WORLD!
WHY? Because it has ALL the ingredients of TRUTH from someone who is innocent and is merely looking out for human society with science, not agenda based, methodology to satisfy her curiosity.

Her observations then confirm one more link in the predatory capitalist, conscience free, Big Ag MO that makes the agricultural profit generating COMMODITY (instead of what it's supposed to be - a human health improving tuber) a scourge on human health and a HIGH YIELD - LOW NUTRITION - CHEMICALLY LACED - CROP (i.e. heavier because it forces the potato to put all its energy into starch instead of vines    (

 (  ( = Big Ag (

( pass this on. The cancer you avoid may be your own.   (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 31, 2014, 11:49:28 pm
Title: Mega-watts and NEGA-watts
Post by: AGelbert on February 02, 2014, 11:30:40 pm
Waste to Energy
Title: Roundup is Ruining our health
Post by: AGelbert on February 04, 2014, 07:47:23 pm

New Research Fuels Roundup Weedkiller Toxicity Concerns    :P  >:(

February 04, 2014

•Increases in reactive oxygen species 
•Increases in nitrotyrosine formation 
•Increases in superoxide dismutase activity 
•Increases in glutathione levels
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2014, 06:07:03 pm
Air Force aircraft returned from Vietnam identified as postwar source of Agent Orange contamination

From 1971-1982 Air Force reservists, who flew in about 34 dioxin-contaminated aircraft used to spray Agent Orange and returned to the US following discontinuation of the herbicide spraying operations in the Vietnam War, were exposed greater levels of dioxin than previously acknowledged, according to a study published today in Environmental Research.


"These findings are important because they describe a previously unrecognized source of exposure to dioxin that has health significance to those who engaged in the transport work using these aircraft," says lead investigator Peter A. Lurker, PhD, PE, CIH, an environmental engineer with many years of experience evaluating environmental exposures in the Air Force.

During the Vietnam War, in an operation known as "Operation Ranch Hand," approximately 20 million gallons of herbicides, including around 10.5 million gallons of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange, were sprayed by about 34 C-123 aircraft. These aircraft were subsequently returned to the US and were used by Air Force reserve units between 1971 and 1982 for transport operations. After many years without monitoring, tests revealed the presence of dioxin (also known as TCDD). All but three of the aircraft were smelted down in 2009.

The Air Force and Department of Veterans Affairs have previously denied benefits to these crew members. Current policies stipulate that "non-biologically available dried residues" of chemical herbicides and dioxin would not have led to meaningful exposures to flight crew and maintenance personnel, who are therefore ineligible for Agent Orange-related benefits or medical examinations and treatment.

Researchers estimated dioxin body burden using modeling algorithms developed by the US Army and data derived from surface wipe samples collected from aircraft used in Operation Ranch Hand. They compared estimates with available guidelines and standards and discuss the implications with respect to current Air Force and VA policies.

These models suggest that the potential for dioxin exposure to personnel working in the aircraft post-Vietnam is greater than previously believed and that inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorption were likely to have occurred during post-Vietnam use of the aircraft by aircrew and maintenance staff. The estimated dermal and oral exposure exceeded US standards. The estimated airborne contamination exceeded the only available (German) standard.

"Our findings, the results of three different modelling approaches, contrast with Air Force and VA conclusions and policies," concludes senior author Jeanne Mager Stellman, PhD, Professor Emerita of Health Policy and Management at the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York. "The VA concept of a 'dried residue' that is biologically unavailable is not consistent with widely accepted theories of the behavior of surface residues. Aircraft occupants would have been exposed to airborne dioxin-contaminated dust as well as come into direct skin contact, and our models show that the level of exposure is likely to have exceeded several available exposure guidelines."

 Explore further: Agent Orange linked to skin cancer risk

More information: "Post Vietnam Military Herbicide Exposures in UC-123 Agent Orange Spray Aircraft," by Peter A. Lurker, Fred Berman, Richard W. Clapp, Jeanne Mager Stellman. Environmental Research, published online on February 21 (Volume 130, 2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.02.004


Journal reference:  Environmental Research search and more info
Title: Population is NOT the problem; 20% using 80% of the Resources IS!
Post by: AGelbert on February 26, 2014, 08:15:32 pm
Title: The Onion takes on Monsanto
Post by: AGelbert on February 27, 2014, 04:11:15 pm
The Onion takes on Monsanto


By Holly Richmond

Agricultural biotech giant Monsanto unveiled its latest strain of genetically modified corn Wednesday, claiming that the new, hardier seed yields 400 percent more litigation against small independent farms than the company’s previous GMO products.
Title: Suffering Oceans Get Biggest Donation Ever From Bloomberg
Post by: AGelbert on February 28, 2014, 06:57:51 pm
02/28/2014 02:25 PM     

Suffering Oceans Get Biggest Donation Ever From Bloomberg News

Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's foundation is making the largest philanthropic donation ever to help the world's oceans, specifically to reform fisheries management.

 Over the next five years, Bloomberg Philanthropies will donate  $53 million to nonprofits Oceana, Rare, and EKO, which will simultaneously attack persistent problems that plague our oceans and are leading to collapsing fish species across the world.

 Under the Vibrant Oceans Initiative, the three groups will focus on boosting fish populations in Chile, Brazil, and the Philippines, which better practices would revitalize 7% of the world's fisheries. Models developed there will hopefully turn into policies that can be applied to many other countries.

There are three major causes of overfishing:

•Industrial fishing is too big - ships can catch twice the fish that exist in the ocean! Inadequate or nonexistent quotas allow species to be depleted to the point where they can't recover  >:(

•industrial bottom trawling, dynamiting and cyanide fishing, which destroy complete habitats  >:(

•bycatch - capturing many unintended species including sea turtles and dolphins.

"The good news is that marine ecosystems can rebound relatively quickly if caught in time. The factors that led to mismanagement must be addressed now to replenish fish populations and to help meet the dietary needs of a growing global population," says Bloomberg Philanthropies.   

These problems have been known for decades but have yet to be resolved. With over 80% of the world's fisheries either exploited or threatened, Oceana will work with national governments on policies that reform industrial fishing practices, such as science-based quotas and bycatch.

 Because 12 million local fisherman catch roughly the same amount of fish, Rare will simultaneously help local governments and coastal communities implement sustainable small-scale practices. One reform will be to offer exclusive fishing rights in exchange for creating marine preserves as California, Australia and Costa Rica have done.

 EKO Asset Management is developing an investment model where private capital can reward fisheries that transition to sustainable practices.

With the oceans reeling from absorbing much of humanity's carbon emissions, reigning in pressure on fish and their habitats is one of the few ways to make a difference. As climate change advances and it becomes harder to grow food on land, a healthy fish population could make a huge difference.

 Bloomberg Philanthropies has made the same $50 million commitment to end the reign of coal with the goal of shuttering a third of aging coal plants by 2020 in the US. Their other big environmental initiative is $20 million to help cities tackle climate change through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

Another emerging threat to oceans is mass industrialization of deep sea ecosystems as people figure out how to mine for minerals there. "Without international cooperation with a focus on 'deep-ocean stewardship,' deep sea mining will follow the destructive examples set by commercial fishing and offshore fossil fuel operations, say scientists.

 Incredibly, a group called the International Seabed Authority has already issued 19 prospecting licenses to governments and private companies.  >:(

Graphic of  Marine Preserves in Northern California at link:
Title: Elizabeth Kolbert reports from the frontlines of a dying world
Post by: AGelbert on March 01, 2014, 05:42:40 pm
In “The Sixth Extinction,” Elizabeth Kolbert reports from the frontlines of a dying world :(

By Grist staff

The New Yorker writer and acclaimed author Elizabeth Kolbert has a penchant for depressing topics. Her 2006 book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, helped push climate change into the mainstream (with bonus points for not mincing words in the title).

Now that climate change is safely keeping most of us up at night, Kolbert turned her pen to another big bummer: the sixth extinction. We’re currently losing species at a rate of 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than unassisted nature wiping out the occasional newt. While humans weren’t responsible for the last five mass extinctions, our fingerprints are all over this one. Yep: We collectively have the force of an asteroid when it comes to erasing species (high five, guys!) and for the most part, our response has been classic Urkel.

Kolbert dropped by the Grist office to chat mass extinctions, climate inaction, and whether there’s any hope (short answer: no. long answer: probably not). Here’s an edited and condensed version of our conversation.

Q. How much do scientists attribute the current wave of extinctions to climate change versus things like deforestation or chemical pollution or invasive species?

book coverA. The fact of the matter is that there are probably, right now, no extinctions that can be directly attributed to climate change. But there are many extinctions that can be pretty directly attributed to invasive species. So if you are just chalking things up, invasive species definitely have a big place.

But people trying to looking into the future with things like modeling — which may or may not be correct, but we won’t necessarily be around to see it — tend to project that the climate is going to become a major driver of extinctions over this century, for all the obvious reasons.

Q. How do we stack up in the extinctions? Like, wow, the Permian extinction is way better, but we’re better than the Chicxulub crater. Are we close to being the best extinction?

A. Well, that’s an unanswerable question, but I will say that I’ve now had several very serious scientists say to me, “We cannot rule out an outcome like the end Permian extinction.” If that ain’t sobering, I don’t know what is.

Q. We’re No. 1?

A. The end Permian extinction was almost certainly caused by a huge CO2 release, and no one is quite sure from where. And the scope of it was quite enormous.

We’re not there yet, but if we burn through everything, I think we could get there. Are we capable of getting there? These are questions that no one can answer at this point.

Q. It wasn’t until the late 1700s or early 1800s that the concept of extinction was even thought about. What process led to that discovery? We now know that there have been five extinctions to date, so a lot has occurred in 200 years in terms of our awareness.

A. As Europeans colonized North America and South America, they found a lot of fossils. One of the major finds was in the 1730s by French soldiers who were going down the Ohio River. They come to this site in what’s now Kentucky and they find mastodon bones, which they shipped to Paris.

Mastodons are interestingly weird because they have tusks like elephants, but teeth like people. So they were very confused by this. People actually speculated that they were two animals that had died, like a hippo and an elephant. Since they didn’t even have this concept of extinction they couldn’t really get their minds around it. (Thomas Jefferson was quite convinced that Lewis and Clark were going to find mastodons.)

People played around with it for a long time until this French naturalist, who’s sort of a main character in the book, came along. [Georges Cuvier] made this (what we would consider) not very scientific observation that if these animals were out there, we would have seen them already, so they were gone. He made that logical leap of faith. And he was right! He was the first person to really theorize extinction.

Q. There have been five extinctions, and each time Mother Nature has brought things back in a different direction — so can’t you see some hope in that? It may not involve humans.

A. If you take the really long view, yeah. Really long. Super long. People make this point about the planet. Well, the non-living planet will be fine. Even most microbial life will be fine, and what are we worried about? Vertebrates? People have said to me, “If the dinosaurs hadn’t been done in, we wouldn’t be here.” That is most certainly true, yeah, but it did take 66 million years, and for a while if you’d been around — I wasn’t there — it would have been pretty grim.

The end Permian didn’t do in life on Earth, and we will not do in life on Earth, but I think most people have a hard time seeing that — something that not even their most distant descendants will be around to see — as a hopeful thing. Geologists take that sort of view.

Q. On the scale of bummed-outed-ness, which one of your books caused you to be the most depressed? Your previous book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, is probably one of the most important books written on climate change to date, and really helped introduced the topic to a whole new range of readers.

A. For Field Notes, I interviewed a lot of the country’s top climate scientists, and they all agree that [climate change] is a pretty clear and present danger to human society. And yet, we can’t seem to come to terms with that at all. So it seemed to me that a species that can’t even do the sort of things that seem to be called for, for its own self, is that species really going to do the things called for everything else on the planet?

It’s maybe a little bit of writerly vanity — you say, OK, I’m going to put this out there and it true and it’s going to make a difference. The same year that my book came out, An Inconvenient Truth came out. It had a huge impact, but — what happened? Nothing happened. So I was already pretty bummed out, I guess.

Q.  You visited different natural places around the world. What was your favorite thing that you encountered?

A.  I’d say the most astonishing place I went was the Great Barrier Reef. I got to go to this very tiny island — the islands on the Reef are built out of the reef, the height of a table, basically, they’re very low and they’re all made out of coral — and they’re spectacularly beautiful. This tiny little research station was on this island. Going out on the reef — you know, you see nature movies and stuff — it’s even better than the nature movies. Unfortunately I don’t dive, but even just snorkeling was amazing. You never have access to that on land, you never see that many different living creatures. Even if you were in the middle of the Amazon, you’d just see leaves! But when you’re looking underwater, it’s just spectacular. And as you know — I was out there with a bunch of scientists studying ocean acidification — the prognosis for reefs is really, really grim.

Q. You also write about some efforts to save species. Could you share some of those?

A. I happened to go to the San Diego Zoo, where they have a very impressive conservation program. I was there to see something called the “frozen zoo.” It’s just a bunch of vats of liquid nitrogen with cell lines from, in many cases, highly endangered animals and, in one case, an animal that doesn’t exist anymore, a Hawaiian bird. The idea is pretty much what it sounds like: You have these cell lines, you’re going to keep them alive forever, and eventually people are going to figure out how to resurrect some of these species. Or maybe if you don’t want to go quite that sci-fi, we’ll take the cell lines, we’ll do a DNA analysis, we’ll try to figure out why this population is having trouble.

They took me to see this bird named Kinohi, one of the last Hawaiian crows. He’s “reluctant to part with his genetic material,” let’s put it that way. He had been taken from this breeding facility on Maui to San Diego, and he is ministered to by a PhD physiologist who is trying to, let’s say, pleasure this bird, so that he will give up some sperm, so she can artificially inseminate a bird back in Maui. When I visited he had not yet, you know, come through. She was literally preparing to try again — I don’t know if it has ever worked, I should call her.

That was really, to me, emblematic of this crazy situation we find ourselves in. We’re incredibly smart, we’ve figured out how to freeze cell lines and quite possibly bring back extinct animals — we’re willing to pleasure crows. And yet, the Hawaiian Islands are called the extinction capital of the planet — it’s an absolutely devastated ecosystem. Many, many birds are extinct already; those that aren’t are just clinging to existence. Those forces are not changing and, in fact, things are getting worse. There used to be no mosquitoes in Hawaii; there are now mosquitoes. They carry avian malaria, and as the climate warms, avian malaria is moving up the slopes so that even these refugees species that are high on the mountains are increasingly not there. A lot of birds are in terrible trouble there.

All of these things are happening at once and, once again, they’re all true. People are devoting a lot of time and energy and love to trying to preserve these species, and meanwhile the world is increasingly screwed up. So that is how I end the book: They can both be true; it’s not one or the other.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 08, 2014, 01:59:48 am
Title: Fracking in America
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2014, 01:12:18 am
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: Surly1 on April 25, 2014, 06:59:56 am
Have you watched any of "Years of Living dangerously" yet?

Just spinning up to speed on what is happening with deforestation in Indonesia alone tends to put a sober global perspective on things. I had no idea of the scope of the destruction, not its impact on global warming, prior to viewing that.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2014, 06:20:48 pm
Yep. I watched the first one. Good stuff there.  (

The first full show is on u-tube. That may be the only one I get to see because I don't have, or want, cable. So, if and when the other 8 parts get to u-tube or some other free forum, please let me know.
Your cheapskate friend,
Agelbert  ;D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: Surly1 on April 26, 2014, 11:02:41 am
Quote from: AG
Yep. I watched the first one. Good stuff there.   

The first full show is on u-tube. That may be the only one I get to see because I don't have, or want, cable. So, if and when the other 8 parts get to u-tube or some other free forum, please let me know.
Your cheapskate friend,
Agelbert  ;D

I watched the first two on cable, but I'll try to keep an eye out.

BTW, does your "quote" function work properly-- or is is just my browser?
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 26, 2014, 02:13:31 pm
I watched the first two on cable, but I'll try to keep an eye out.

BTW, does your "quote" function work properly-- or is is just my browser?

It's still a pain. You have to right click on "quote", then "open in new tab" and copy the quote in the new tab to your reply like I just did.   :(

Title: Shocking Success! Supreme Court Rules For Clean Air
Post by: AGelbert on April 30, 2014, 03:43:19 pm
Shocking Success! Supreme Court Rules For Clean Air  ;D

( News

 Given the decisions issued by the US Supreme Court of late, today's ruling that upholds a critical EPA rule is pleasantly shocking. (

 In another 6-2 vote, the court ruled in favor of EPA's Cross-State Pollution rule, issued in 2011, which would regulate emissions that travel from coal-heavy states in the Midwest and Appalachia to eastern states that have cleaner air.

 Should a coal plant in Ohio be able to pollute New York's air, for example? Besides sending polluted air their way, it also makes it unfairly harder for states to meet federal ambient air quality standards.

Coal emissions

When it finally goes into effect, an estimated 240 million Americans will benefit from cleaner air.  (  It cuts sulfur dioxide emissions across the US by 73% (compared with 2005 levels)  and nitrogen oxide emissions by 54%.

 Both pollutants can travel long distances, forming smog and soot, which are linked to respiratory illnesses and other disease. It is expected to save 34,000 lives each year and prevent 400,000 asthma attacks, for example. Overall, the economic and health benefits are in the range of $120 billion to $280 billion in exchange for an $800 million investment by the coal industry. 

Today's vote reverses the US Court of Appeals ruling against the EPA, brought by guess who - coal companies and utilities that use lots of coal, such as Southern Company and Peabody Energy. 14 "upwind" states challenged the rule, while "downwind" states defended it.

In writing the majority decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls the rule a "permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation" of the "good neighbor" provision of the federal Clean Air Act.   ( (

Learn more about the Cross-State Pollution rule:

Title: Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2014, 03:56:35 pm

Why are farmed Atlantic salmon rated “Avoid”?

The salmon farming industry has made improvements in the past decade to reduce its environmental impact, but additional work is needed in order to address remaining concerns. Though the scope of problems varies by country, chemical use and disease are two areas of environmental concern that exist across each assessment.

Salmon farmed in open net pens are highly vulnerable to infection from diseases, or parasites such as sea lice, and as a result require treatment with antibiotics and pesticides. The use of antibiotics in salmon farms increases the risk of antibiotic resistance in human diseases, and there is a high concern regarding the use of antibiotics that are listed as critically or highly important to human health by the World Health Organization.

Sea lice parasites and viral and bacterial diseases can be passed between farmed fish and wild fish populations, and are a high concern in Norway, Scotland and British Columbia where wild salmon or sea trout populations are vulnerable to such impact.

What salmon should I buy?  (

Seafood Watch has published recommendations regarding a range of salmon options, from wild to farmed. View our salmon recommendations here (at link).

For what other countries or regions is Seafood Watch assessing farmed salmon?

The four regions assessed represent the large majority of global farmed salmon, but Seafood Watch is currently working to complete assessments for other regions that supply significant amounts of farmed salmon to the U.S. market: the Atlantic coast of North America (Atlantic salmon farmed on the U.S. and Canadian east coasts), New Zealand (Pacific King salmon) and the Faroe Islands (Atlantic salmon).

Why is Verlasso® farmed salmon from Chile rated a “Good Alternative”?

Verlasso® farm operations use a unique feed ingredient that reduces its dependence on fish oil and fishmeal from wild-caught fish sources, but the main reasons for the “Good Alternative” recommendation are that the fish are stocked in the pens at lower densities than in other open-net pen operations and documents show both limited pollution (effluent) levels at its farms, and lower use of antibiotics than the industry average in Chile.

More good info here:

Title: The Time for Wind and Solar Energy Is Now
Post by: AGelbert on May 04, 2014, 04:34:16 pm
The Time for Wind and Solar Energy Is Now(

 Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists 
 May 01, 2014

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) latest report, which explores ways to cut carbon emissions, put the world on notice. Despite efforts in the United States, Europe and developing countries such as China to ramp up energy efficiency and renewable energy, global carbon emissions have been increasing at a much faster clip than they were just a few decades ago. To avoid the worst of the worst, IPCC scientists say emissions will have to be reduced 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050 and warn that we only have a 15-year window to reverse course.

"We cannot afford to lose another decade," said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist who co-chaired the committee that wrote the report. "If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization."

As Edenhofer points out, the cost of doing nothing likely would dwarf whatever we might spend today to address climate change. That said, it makes the most sense to replace fossil fuels with the most cost-effective, safest, carbon-free and low-carbon options that can be deployed as quickly as possible.

For the biggest source of U.S. carbon pollution — electric utilities — the best solution is wind, solar and other renewable energy technologies, which, according to the new IPCC report, "have achieved a level of technical and economic maturity to enable deployment at a significant scale." In other words, renewables are now a lot cheaper and better than they were when the last IPCC report came out seven years ago.

Nuclear Not Economic

What about nuclear power? Although it now provides the most carbon-free electricity in the country, without a national carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, it's not economic, even with more than 50 years of generous federal subsidies.

Over the last decade, the estimated price tag for a new reactor has skyrocketed, jumping from $2 billion in 2002 to as high as $12 billion today. Wall Street won't finance a project unless Uncle Sam co-signs the loan, which leaves taxpayers on the hook if a project fails. So while Southern Company and its partners, with the help of an $8.3 billion federally guaranteed loan, are building two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia, it's unlikely the industry will be able to muster more than two or three more in the next decade. As recently as five years ago, utilities applied for licenses to build more than 25 new reactors.

At the same time the nuclear industry's hoped-for renaissance has fizzled, older reactors are shutting down. Four reactors closed last year because of prohibitively expensive safety upgrades or competition from cheaper energy sources, namely natural gas and wind. Economics will close a fifth reactor, Vermont Yankee, this fall, and the nation's largest nuclear plant operator, Exelon, said in February that unless market conditions improve, it will announce plant closings by the end of this year.

Wind, Solar More Affordable

Unlike new reactors, the cost of solar and wind has dropped dramatically. Solar panel prices have plummeted more than 75 percent since 2008, and the cost of generating electricity from wind turbines declined more than 40 percent over the past three years, sparking a construction boom. Last year, solar installations in the United States amounted to a record 5.1 gigawatts, boosting the national total to nearly 13 gigawatts -- enough to power nearly 2.2 million typical American homes. And by the end of December, there were enough wind turbines across the country to power 15.5 million homes and cut annual electric power sector carbon emissions by 4.4 percent.

Given solar and wind's exponential growth, experts see tremendous potential. The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), for example,projects that wind and solar could produce 15 percent of U.S. electricity by 2020, 27 percent by 2030, and 50 percent by 2050.

Still, naysayers harp on the fact that wind and solar power are intermittent. The sun doesn't always shine, they say, and the wind doesn't always blow. That may be true, but it's not a deal-breaker. Studies by NREL and electricity grid operators in the United States and Europe conclude that larger contributions from solar and wind would not create significant technological problems or impose higher costs.

"Meeting demand in the face of variability and uncertainty is old hat for grid operators," said Mike Jacobs, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) who used to work at NREL. "They're already doing it with wind and solar here in the United States and in Europe.

"Besides, spreading wind and solar installations over a large enough area would help address the intermittency issue," he added. "The wind is always blowing somewhere, and if we increased the percentage of wind and solar to 30 percent — which we should be able to do within the next 15 years — the system's flexibility to manage supply and demand, along with a updated grid, should be able to integrate that power."

Renewables Provide More Resilience

Ramping up renewables not only would cut carbon emissions, it also would diversify the national electricity system and make it more resilient, according to a new UCS report. That system — which includes power plants, transmission lines and fuel delivery networks — was not designed to withstand all of today's extreme weather events, many of which have been linked to climate change.

Sea level rise, for example, threatens nearly 100 coastal electricity facilities, including power plants and substations, the UCS report found. Water temperature and availability also pose major problems. Older coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants rely on a "once-through" cooling process that draws hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons of water daily from the closest water body. When that river, lake or ocean gets too hot, which is happening with greater frequency, the plants have to cut back production or shut down temporarily. Likewise, droughts can substantially reduce water availability, while flooding from extreme rainfall can overwhelm a plant, as it did in June 2011 when a record-breaking Missouri River flood forced the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant near Omaha to remain shut down after a scheduled refueling outage two months earlier.

Renewables don't suffer from the same limitations. Rooftop solar panels and wind turbines, for instance, rely on smaller, more distributed units, which make it less likely that extreme weather events would have the same dramatic impact. Moreover, renewables are less vulnerable to drought and heat because they don't require water.

Let's Stop Subsidizing Fossil Fuels

To get where we need to go, the federal government has to turn its outdated energy subsidy policy on its head. The oil and gas industry has been enjoying average annual subsidies and tax breaks of $4.86 billion in today's dollars since 1918, according to a 2011 analysis by DBL Investors, a venture capital firm. The nuclear industry, DBL found, benefited from an average of $3.5 billion a year in subsidies from 1947 to 1999. And coal, which has been getting federal and state subsidies since the early 1800s, currently receives at least $3.2 billion a year, according to a 2011 Harvard study.

Renewables, on the other hand, averaged only $370 million a year in subsidies between 1994 and 2009, according to DBL. The 2009 stimulus package did provide $21 billion for renewables, but that support barely began to balance the scales that still tilt toward fossil fuels. Just last December, for example, Congress allowed a key wind industry tax break toexpire, but it continues to support massive subsidies for coal, oil and gas.

Americans represent less than 5 percent of the world's population, but we're responsible for 19 percent of the world's carbon emissions. Despite the fact that China surpassed us as the world's top carbon emitter in 2006, we're still the worst offenders per capita. So after subsidizing coal for more than 200 years and oil and gas for nearly 100 — which inadvertently got us into this mess — it's long past time to take fossil fuels off the dole and go all out to promote renewables. Fifteen years is just around the corner.
Title: Minnesotans vs. McDonald’s Toxic Taters
Post by: AGelbert on May 06, 2014, 02:49:32 pm

Minnesotans vs. McDonald’s Toxic Taters

Maryam Henein, The Green Divas | May 5, 2014 3:59 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 07, 2014, 10:56:34 pm
Stanford Student Movement Inspires University’s $18.7 Billion Divestment From Coal
  (  ;D
Title: Warren Buffett to Close One of Nation’s Dirtiest Coal Plants
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2014, 03:12:29 pm
Warren Buffett to Close One of Nation’s Dirtiest Coal Plants in Favor of Solar Energy (

Brandon Baker | May 8, 2014 12:20 pm     

One of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the U.S. will soon shut down, thanks to a well-known billionaire and previously passed legislation.

As part of its acquisition of Nevada’s largest utility, NV Energy, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway also inherited Reid Gardner, a 557-megawatt (MW), coal-fired energy plant near Las Vegas. The massive structure, which has a history of recognition among the country’s dirtiest carbon polluters, won’t be a lasting legacy of NV’s profile.

NV plans on shutting down three of Reid Gardner’s units that generate about 300 MW by the end of this year, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The remaining 257 MW would be closed by the end of 2017. In all, the company wants to end all of its coal operations by 2019.

Coal-fired plants will soon be a thing of the past for NV Energy   (

As The Atlantic points out, the utility’s decision is tied to state legislation passed last year requiring the company to eliminate 800 MW of coal energy in favor of renewables. That passage was influenced by years of fighting for cleaner air by the Moapa Band of Paiutes, a Native American community that lives near Reid Gardner.

The state utilities commission has 180 days to approve the plan, which would also include a new solar project totaling 200 MW of clean energy on the Moapa Band of Paiutes reservation. The land is about 70,000 acres and has enough to space to also support the 1.5 gigawatts of renewable energy the Moapa Band of Paiute wants to construct through a joint venture announced last year with Terrible Herbst Inc. and Stronghold Engineering Inc.

“This is going to provide a strong economic base for the tribe,” Sandy King, director of renewable-energy project development at Stronghold, told Renewable Energy World.

Last fall, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour for new coal plants.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 12, 2014, 01:24:09 pm

Legal trifecta!

Another big EPA court victory — this time on soot pollution
(  (



By John Upton
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 14, 2014, 12:10:42 am
Citing Climate Change, Ethical Reasons, New Zealand Town Divests From Fossil Fuels (

Aaron Packard, | May 13, 2014 9:23 am

Dunedin is closer to Antarctica than it is to the U.S., but this city in New Zealand today joined 23 U.S. cities and one Dutch town by announcing that it will divest from fossil fuels.

The Dunedin city council voted on Tuesday to remove existing fossil fuel extraction investments—close to $2 million—and prevent future investments in fossil fuels by its $75 million Waripori fund. The move sees Dunedin City become the first New Zealand city to divest from fossil fuels for ethical and climate change reasons.

This move by the council comes at a time when the conservative New Zealand Government, led by Prime Minister John Key, has been pushing desperate plans to expand fossil fuel extraction across New Zealand. Yet this vote, along with the divestment announcements last September by five Anglican Dioceses in New Zealand, and the months of campaigning to halt the Denniston Coal Mine and offshore oil drilling reflect a growing disquiet with the government’s fossil fuel plans.

In recent months the Australian owned bank, Westpac, has also come under pressure to take steps to divest. Climate campaigning groups 350 Aotearoa—the New Zealand arm of—and Coal Action Network Aotearoa, are specifically calling on Westpac to halt its funding of Bathhurst Resources, whose planned coal mining project on the Denniston Plateau and surrounds would be one of the largest new contributors to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from New Zealand.

“It’s time for Westpac to front up and take responsibility for the impacts of their financing, like Dunedin has today,” said 350 Aotearoa National Coordinator Ashlee Gross. “Financing oil, coal and gas companies is playing a major role in determining whether these companies go ahead with plans that would push us well past safe CO2 levels, or whether we start to get serious about the transition to clean energy.”

This growing discontent locally has in recent weeks been backed by the rapidly growing global divestment movement. Last week, Stanford University announced plans to divest its $18 billion USD endowment fund from coal investments. Two weeks earlier, the world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock, announced plans to create a fund that will exclude fossil fuels.

The Dunedin city council’s ethical investment policy will formally exclude the munitions, tobacco, fossil fuel extraction, gambling and p o r n ography industries from its investment portfolio. With an investment policy like that, it sure makes living in Dunedin more tempting. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 14, 2014, 12:51:41 am

A Look Back at the Town That Didn’t Back Down  ( Fracking (

Brandon Baker | May 12, 2014 3:46 pm | Comments

A small-town fracking ban took place nearly three years ago in upstate New York, but that doesn’t make it any less monumental.

That’s why Earthjustice produced a new video examining how Dryden, NY’s ban happened and why it remains as an inspiration to cities across the country hoping to fight fracking.

“My voice, by itself, carries very little weight,” said Marie McRae, a resident who galvanized the community to support a ban, “but when I join my voice with my immediate neighbors, with the larger community that I live in, we all together have a voice that’s loud enough for our elected officials to hear.”

The town’s governing body banned fracking in August 2011 and withstood subsequent, corporate lawsuits attempting to overturn the decision. The short video was selected for the Gasland blog‘s movie of the week. Lee Ziesche, Gasland’s grassroots coordinator, said she thinks, “wow, that’s what democracy looks like,” when watching the video.

“Every community across this nation can do exactly what Dryden did,” resident Joanne Cipolla-Dennis said in the video.

“You have to care about each other. That’s the American dream … you count on your neighbor.”

Agelbert NOTE: You HAVE to care for ALL of the life forms in the biosphere because any other way of thinking and acting is STUPID as well as being WRONG.  ( ;D I admit that I won't make a lot of friends and influence many people with that statement... (

BUT nevertheless, it's TRUE!  (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 14, 2014, 01:02:40 am
Title: Oil and Gas Operations Are a ‘Death Sentence for Soil’
Post by: AGelbert on May 14, 2014, 01:14:47 am
Oil and Gas Operations Are a ‘Death Sentence for Soil’

Amy Mall, Natural Resources Defense Council  | May 5, 2014 9:45 am

Yesterday’s Denver Post has a very important story about the toll of oil and gas production( on soil.

Soil sounds like a really boring topic. But, as the Soil Science Society of America says: “soils sustain life.” ( According to the Society, “soil supports and nourishes the plants that we eat” and that livestock eat; soil “filters and purifies much of the water we drink;” “soils teem with microorganisms that have given us many life-saving medications;” and “protecting soil from erosion helps reduce the amount of air-borne dust we breathe.”

According to the Post:

◦At least 716,982 gallons (45 percent) of the petroleum chemicals spilled during the past decade have stayed in the ground after initial cleanup—contaminating soil, sometimes spreading into groundwater.  >:(

◦Oil and gas drilling produces up to 500 tons of dirt from every new well, some of it soaked with hydrocarbons and laced with potentially toxic minerals and salts.  >:(

◦Heavy trucks crush soil, “suffocating the delicate subsurface ecosystems that traditionally made Colorado’s Front Range suitable for farming.”  (

These impacts from the tens of thousands of wells in Colorado alone led a Colorado soil scientist to state that oil and gas operations are ”like a death sentence for soil.”

The Post points out that no federal or state agency has ever assessed the impact of the oil and gas boom on soil and on human health. (
Title: 10 Most Toxic Ingredients Used In Coal, Oil and Gas Production
Post by: AGelbert on May 18, 2014, 11:18:10 pm
10 Most Toxic Ingredients Used In Coal, Oil and Gas Production  :P
Title: Greenhouse Gas USA State Rankings
Post by: AGelbert on May 19, 2014, 08:36:52 pm

The Green Mountain State has the LEAST GHG Emissions!
 (                  (                        (                     (                       (
Title: How Planned Obsolescence HAS NOT GONE AWAY with the light bulb...
Post by: AGelbert on May 22, 2014, 10:48:09 pm
The Light Bulb Conspiracy

Planned Obsolescence is the deliberate shortening of product life spans to guarantee consumer demand.

As a magazine for advertisers succinctly puts it: The article that refuses to wear out is a tragedy of business ( and a tragedy for the modern growth society which relies on an ever-accelerating cycle of production, consumption and throwing away.  ( (  (   (

The Light Bulb Conspiracy combines investigative research and rare archive footage to trace the untold story of Planned Obsolescence, from its beginnings in the 1920s with a secret cartel, set up expressly to limit the life span of light bulbs, to present-day stories involving cutting edge electronics (such as the iPod) and the growing spirit of resistance amongst ordinary consumers.

This film travels to France, Germany, Spain and the US to find witnesses of a business practice which has become the basis of the modern economy, and brings back disquieting pictures from Africa where discarded electronics are piling up in huge cemeteries for electronic waste. (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 24, 2014, 02:46:36 pm

'Tide is Turning' as Oregon Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Ban of GE Crops

Ronnie Cummins: "These victories make it clear to agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Dow that the day has come when they can no longer buy and lie their way to victory."

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2014, 01:28:12 am
Where there is a will, there is a way.   (
Title: Pollution: Oxfam names major food firms as climate change 'accomplices'
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2014, 02:19:54 pm
The food and beverage sector: Accomplices to the climate crisis

Oxfam names major food firms as climate change 'accomplices'

Oxfam, May 21, 2014

Climate change threatens the world's food and beverage industry like few other sectors of business.  It is a major risk to food supply chains, to consumer demands and, ultimately, to companies' future profitability.

The Big 10 food and beverage companies -- Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez International, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever -- are significant emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) across their global operations.

If together they were a single country, these 10 famous companies would be the 25th most polluting country in the world, emitting more GHGs (263.7 million tons per annum) than Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway combined. They are not doing nearly enough to cut their own carbon footprint.

 But worse, they are failing to use their experience, leadership, and power to transform their own industry and push for the level of climate action the world needs. With a few notable exceptions, the Big 10 are being silent accomplices to this unfolding crisis. It is a serious charge because these companies should be fully aware of the impact that climate change is having on the planet's food system, given their dominance and reach into it. Two companies in particular, Kellogg and General Mills, are clear laggards among the Big 10. Both companies are highly vulnerable to climate impacts but also well positioned to lead the industry towards a more sustainable future.

Climate change is contributing to storms, floods, drought, and shifting weather patterns. These are causing crop failures, food price spikes, and supply disruptions. The end result will be more poverty and hunger. By 2050, there could be an extra 25 million malnourished children under the age of 5 because of climate change, and 50 million more hungry people.

This is the human dimension of the climate change crisis that is already unfolding. The poorest, most vulnerable people are being hit first and worst. But all of us will be affected. In major markets like the US and the UK, Oxfam calculates that climate change will drive up the retail price of products like General Mills' Kix cereal by up to 24 percent and Kellogg Corn Flakes by as much as 44 percent over the next 15 years. Such retail price hikes are the consequence of rising prices of commodities like corn and rice, projected to double by 2030, with half the price rise due to climate change.

For the full report:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 26, 2014, 08:38:59 pm
Indians accused over “Devil’s Bend” killings go on trial 26 May 2014

Police break up road blockade near Bagua, Peru, June 5th © Thomas Quirynen

Fifty-three people go on trial in Peru today, charged in connection with violent clashes between indigenous protesters and police five years ago that left thirty-three dead.

The violence erupted in June 2009 after more than 50 days of nationwide protests led by Peru’s Amazon Indians over government plans to strip the Indians of their rights, and open up the Amazon to oil drilling and mining.

The clashes took place in Peru’s northern Amazon town of Bagua, after police confronted indigenous protesters who had peacefully blockaded a highway at a place known as “Devil’s Bend” for almost two months.

Twenty-three police officers, five Indians and five civilians were killed and more than 200 injured during the incident, according to a report by Peru’s Ombudsman. Unofficial reports have claimed the death toll was much higher.

Amongst those charged is Alberto Pizango, the president of Peru’s Amazon Indian Organization AIDESEP. The prosecution has called for Pizango to be imprisoned for life for “inciting violence”.

Since the clashes, several of the government’s controversial decrees have been repealed. In 2011, Peru’s President Ollanta Humala approved a law designed to guarantee indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior and informed consent to any projects affecting them and their lands.

However, since then the government has approved a controversial expansion of the massive Camisea gas project, even though it will penetrate deep into the territory of uncontacted Indians.

Peru’s government has been heavily criticized by both indigenous people and families of the deceased police officers for its failure to prevent the violence.

No police officers have yet been brought to trial. >:(

Read Survival’s eyewitness report (download includes several pictures :o) of the Bagua killings .here ( NOTE: contains images some may find disturbing
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 29, 2014, 10:41:26 pm

Study Connects Monsanto’s Roundup to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic  :(  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 29, 2014, 11:22:21 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2014, 04:32:50 pm
05/29/2014 12:28 PM     

Big Carbon & Big Tobacco, Same Path to Court News

At some point, corporations will be held accountable for their crimes against nature and society by fueling climate change and misinforming the public on this emergency.

A letter to 75 corporate executives of major fossil fuel, insurance and other carbon-intensive companies makes it clear that day is drawing nearer - it says executives could face personal liability for funding climate denial and obstructing policies necessary to fight climate change. 

 The Center for International Environmental Law, Greenpeace International and World Wildlife Fund sent the letter to fossil fuel, mining, insurance and carbon-intensive manufacturers like cement-maker Holcim (here's the list).

 "From asbestos to tobacco to oil spills, history shows that those who mislead the public, the market or the government about the risks of their products, or the availability of safer alternatives, can face substantial legal liability, both as companies and as individuals. As the impacts of climate denialism and regulatory obstruction become clear, we want to understand how corporations, insurers, and officers and directors are allocating those risks among themselves. Just as importantly, we ask what steps they're taking to prevent the misconduct that creates those risks in the first place," says Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law.

"Sooner or later, those who hide the facts and oppose policies to fight climate change will be held to account by the courts. By signing this letter, we hope to bring attention to the importance of truthful, transparent and responsible corporate reporting and policy engagement on climate change," says Samantha Smith, who leads WWF's Global Climate and Energy Initiative.

50 corporations produce 75% of the greenhouse gases of the 500 largest publicly traded companies. These are the major polluters in the US. 

Climate Change Discussion

Indeed, leading environmental attorneys from around the world are building the case to go after polluters in court to force them (or their government regulators) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   (

"Big Carbon is where Big Tobacco was, before it started losing," ( says an article in The Nation. The tobacco industry kept spinning doubt long after the science was clear on the health issues caused by its products. "As the tobacco suits lurched forward, documents - as well as some infamous congressional testimony - proved the industry's bad faith, swaying public opinion against tobacco. It was that, along with the massive wave of lawsuits by all 50 state attorneys general, that helped persuade Congress to bring the cigarette makers under the federal regulatory umbrella," explains The Nation.

"While the industry scoffs at the importance of climate-change lawsuits, Big Carbon is thought to be taking them very seriously in private  ( ( - especially after a federal appeals court found in 2005 that US cities and even individuals suffering economic and other damages from climate change have standing to sue under the National Environmental Policy Act," climate attorney Matthew Pawa, told The Nation.

"We want to influence the court of public opinion. We have to educate people about the truth after all this industry disinformation. So let the lawsuits produce documents and testimony and all sorts of information for the public. That's one of their functions. That's where the tobacco wars were won. Even [Representative Henry] Waxman's famous tobacco hearings in Congress - the tobacco execs never admitted anything. You didn't need to get to that. By the time they left the hearing room, they were already pariahs. We'd seen through them," says attorney Kert Davies.

Here is the letter:

Dear __(,

We are writing to you as we are contacting individual members of the Board of Directors and/or Officers of ___ corporation, which ranks among the largest historic contributors to industrial greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, we have contacted Senior Executives of major writers of Directors and Officers (D&O) liability cover. You can view the list of recipients on the Greenpeace International website.

The corporations who share the majority of responsibility for the estimated global industrial emissions of CO2 and methane over the past 150 years may have been or may be working to defeat action on climate change and clean energy by funding climate denial and disseminating false or misleading information on climate risks (see Annex A). These actions are being taken despite increased awareness of the threats associated with climate change among shareholders, the insurance industry, and many others, and the overwhelming body of climate science on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

While lawful lobbying is a vital part of the democratic process, corporate influence - either directly or through outside organizations - aiming to obstruct action on climate change, coupled with the development, sponsorship or dissemination of false, misleading or intentionally incomplete information about the climate risks associated with fossil fuel products and services to regulators, shareholders, and insurers could pose a risk   (   (   (    (  to directors and officers personally. In particular, the threat of future civil or criminal litigation could have major implications for D&O liability insurance coverage (see Annex B).

We ask that you respond within four weeks to the "Questions for fossil fuel company directors and officers". The substance of this letter, along with a list of companies to which we have sent letters is posted on the Greenpeace International website, and your response will also be posted soon after its receipt.

We look forward to receiving your responses.   (  (


 Read the article in the Nation, Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court:

Title: A healthy economy OR a healthy environment is a FOSSIL FUEL FOLLEY CHOICE
Post by: AGelbert on June 02, 2014, 10:39:01 pm
Nice EPA new Carbon Regs video. "We will never, in the USA, have to pick between a healthy economy and a healthy environment."  (

Select Soundbites from the EPA Carbon Rule Announcement June 2, 2014:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 06, 2014, 01:58:40 pm
(                     (

Title: The Beautiful Poisoned Children of China
Post by: AGelbert on June 07, 2014, 01:24:10 am

The Beautiful Poisoned Children of China (

Hard hitting article here:
Title: Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Companies Guilty of Damaging Streams
Post by: AGelbert on June 07, 2014, 06:59:14 pm
Historic Federal Decision Finds West Virginia Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Companies Guilty of Damaging Streams  ( (

Brandon Baker | June 6, 2014

Believe it or not, no federal court in the U.S. had ever ruled that high conductivity discharges from coal mines were harmful to streams until this week.  >:(

Everything changed with a historic decision in the U.S. District Court  ( ( for the Southern District of West Virginia that found two companies guilty of violating clean water protections. The decision was a result of a citizen lawsuit filed more than two years ago accusing mountaintop removal mines owned by Alex Energy and Elk Run Coal Co. contaminated waters in Laurel Creek and Robinson Fork with sulfate and other dissolved solids, adding toxicity to the ecosystem of aquatic creatures.

Full article here:
Title: Shocking Fracking Film ‘Unearthed’ to Premiere
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2014, 04:20:28 pm
Shocking Fracking Film ‘Unearthed’ to Premiere at UK’s Sheffield International Documentary Festival

Brandon Baker | June 7, 2014 9:00 am

Jolynn Minnaar had no intention of making a documentary exposing the evils of fracking. In fact, the Karoo, South Africa native viewed the arrival of a shale gas extraction industry as an exciting opportunity for development and employment in home district.

Her opinion changed after visiting the U.S.

Full story here:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 10, 2014, 09:28:40 pm
Bold Nebraska Director Jane Kleeb Explains the Science   (  ( Behind Climate Denial

Brandon Baker | June 10, 2014 4:46 pm | Comments

With a decision on Keystone XL postponed indefinitely, Jane Kleeb is busy advocating and campaigning against the pipeline proposal. Still, she took a few minutes out of her day for the recent rash of climate change deniers.

The Bold Nebraska director appeared on MSNBC’s Ed Show this week to explain why legislators across the country see it fit to challenge scientists and admit that they aren’t actually qualified to do so in the same sentence.

When guest host Michael Eric Dyson, an author and professor at Georgetown University, asked why so many Republicans are minimizing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, Kleeb provided a simple and honest answer.

“I would hate to say that it’s this simplified, but it is—a vast majority of their political donations come from big oil, big gas and big coal,” she said. “We’ve got to start kind of realizing that they are talking not for their constituents, not for carbon pollution that’s consuming the communities in their areas, they’re speaking for the people who are lining their pockets. It’s really that simple.”(

Video at link:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 17, 2014, 06:01:53 pm
New York Assembly Overwhelmingly Passes Fracking Moratorium
(                                 (                            (

Brandon Baker | June 17, 2014 9:25 am     

New York’s general assembly passed a moratorium on fracking Monday with a sensible question in mind—why rush?

“We have heard from thousands of residents across the state about many issues associated with hydrofracking, and prudent leadership demands that we take our time to address all these concerns,” said New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. “We do not need to rush into this. The natural gas deposits within the Marcellus Shale are not going to go anywhere.”

The assembly passed a three-year moratorium of oil and natural gas drilling permits by an 89-to-34 count to allow for more time to study the environmental impact of the practice. The state has been under a fracking moratorium since 2008, with the most recent one passing in 2013. It would have expired in May 2015.

New York environmental groups and medical professionals don't want their communities to end up like the one pictured in Windham Township, Wyoming County, PA. Photo credit: Donald Gilliland/The Patriot-News

Full passage of the moratorium now depends on the New York State Senate and, ultimately, Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The Associated Press reports that the Senate is unlikely to address the issue before adjournment later this week.

“We thank the Assembly for listening to the medical experts by overwhelmingly passing a moratorium on fracking to protect New Yorkers from the devastating health and environmental impacts,” Alex Beauchamp of Food & Water Watch and New Yorkers Against Fracking said in a statement. “Now, we’re urging Gov. Cuomo and the State Senate to stand up against the out-of-state oil and gas industry, and stand up for our state’s health, environment and long-term economy by rejecting fracking.”

Some environmental groups might not agree that more time is needed to study fracking, but they are glad their voices, as well as those of medical professionals, have been heard. In May, a lengthy list of doctors and groups like the American Lung Association in New York wrote a letter to Cuomo stressing the impact fracking has on nearby states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

“Oil and gas development utilizing HVHF [High volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing] involves the use and/or production of numerous toxic and hazardous air and water contaminants, a number of them known or suspected carcinogens,” the legislation reads. “Oil and gas development utilizing HVHF has also been associated with a range of adverse environmental impacts, including impacts to water and air quality, land and habitat, and community character.”

Dr. Sheila Bushkin of the Concerned Health Professionals of New York echoed the cautious optimism in the state that the moratorium will continue beyond next May.

“We applaud the New York State Assembly for its leadership in responding to the growing body of science demonstrating that fracking threatens public health and passing a three year moratorium,” Buskin said. “The science is clear that a moratorium on fracking of at least three years is the only responsible course of action, and the New York State Senate and Governor Cuomo should swiftly follow suit.”
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 19, 2014, 04:00:54 pm
Princeton Study: Up to 900,000 Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Pollute Pennsylvania’s Air

Brandon Baker | June 19, 2014 11:22 am (

Agelbert NOTE:
Move along, nothing to see here say people like Nicole Foss ("there's money to be made") and other happy-numbers-for-fossil-fuel EROI BULLSHIT ARTISTS. Hello Charles Hall.  ( 

Guess who gets to pay this "externalized cost" for all those "cheap" fossil fuels that we NEVER demanded but were cleverly stuffed down our collective throats through propaganda and rip off subsidy laws that stifled renewable energy for over a century? NOT BIG OIL!!!
( (

Big Oil is going to lie 24/7 saying WE demanded  ( ( ( all those "wonderful", "civilization improving" and "standard of living raising" and "population increasing" Fossil **** fuels! So WE-the-people have to "pick up" after those MINOR DETAILS that involved supplying us with all this "concentrated source of energy". That's just the Free **** Market in action, don'tcha know? What are ya, a Commie or sumptin'? We were and are just doing what YOU WANT us to do! We are your loyal servants supplying a NEED! No we aren't drug pushers!  ;) We are Oil men. ( (  (

Keep swallowing the LIES of the MKings of this world and keep allowing their profits that poison us are used to buy our government or  sign here!  (

Details on how the Fossil fuels profit over planet SCAM of the century was perpetrated:
Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did

Published July 17, 2012. | By A. G. Gelbert (

 Exposed: The 1950s mendacious pro-nuclear propaganda (that most Americans still wrongly believe) for MIC predatory corporate profit that building over 400 nuclear power plants during the postwar period was justified in order to make Weapons Grade Plutonium for "national security". (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 21, 2014, 01:14:23 pm
Pennsylvania Instructed Its Employees To Ignore Residents Sickened By Drilling


By Andrew Breiner on June 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2014, 03:44:49 pm
Report Exposes Companies That Dumped 206 Million Pounds of Toxic Chemicals Into U.S. Waterways  :P  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 30, 2014, 06:38:03 pm
BREAKING: Court Rules That New York Towns Can Ban Fracking And Drilling  (

By Katie Valentine on June 30, 2014 at 10:02 am
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 30, 2014, 11:03:56 pm
Monsanto was a BIG DEFENDER OF DDT just like it now defends GMO BT TOXIN and glyphosate (roundup herbicide chemically closely related to AGENT ORANGE!)  :P >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 04, 2014, 09:23:44 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2014, 09:31:03 pm
On the frontlines of a fractured landscape  :(  :P (


They then began to notice dead spots in the grass where cows had urinated.

Soil samples showed higher levels of strontium, a naturally occurring element usually trapped deep underground, elevated levels of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, commonly used in the fracking process — the first clue that fracking may have contaminated their groundwater.

The second clue was the sudden absence of algae, pointing to the presence of biocides often used in fracking fluids. The cows’ water is kept heated throughout the winter, providing an ideal environment for algae to grow — from time to time Howard had to remove the green muck from the troughs. “Last year he didn’t have to clean it out because the water was crystal clear. The algae were all dead,” Nielle notes.

Howard and Nielle say that their problems are not unique. But neighbours won’t speak out for fear their purebred animal or seed stock businesses will be perceived as tainted. The Hawkwoods’ outspokenness has already caused tensions with some of them.

They feel that we’re against them, and they won’t even talk to us in public. They actually walk on the other side of the street.

“They feel that we’re against them, and they won’t even talk to us in public. They actually walk on the other side of the street.”

Many people have quietly left the community, but word’s getting out about the problems, making it almost impossible for those left behind to sell their properties and move away.

The time is fast approaching when the Hawkwoods will have to make a decision. As grass starts to grow back after winter, patches of barren land are clearly more widespread than last year. Howard estimates they lost between one and two acres of productive land in each of the last two years.

“Now if this keeps up, I would imagine that within about 10 years, my ranch will not exist anymore,” he says.

SNIPPET 2: (a fossil fueler gets a bit of his own "medicine"...)

After working around the world as an oil and gas engineer for more than 30 years, Dan Thomas knows a thing or two about the petroleum industry. His home in the Lochend area of Cochrane, Alberta, overlooks large cattle-ranching operations, small acreages, the distant Rocky Mountains and, in just the past three years, over 100 oil well sites.

Dan and his wife, Elaine, planned a quiet, country retirement after returning from the Netherlands, in a modest home connected to a small meeting space to rent out for business team-building retreats and meetings. But a drilling rig appeared 400 metres from the property just days before construction was slated to begin. “If I had had two weeks’ notice, I wouldn’t be sitting here,” Thomas says.

Things changed fast. The area went from one oil rig to 110 in three years, without stakeholder engagement or risk assessments.

An expert in the field, Thomas understands the processes. Modern, high-pressure hydraulic fracturing differs from technology used since the 1950s in one major way: pressure. Conventional fracking used water, chemicals and sand pressurized to about 700 pounds per square inch. Today, upwards of 4.5 million litres of fracking fluid and over 200,000 tonnes of sand can be pumped underground — all at pressures well over 10,000 psi.  :P

During the drilling process, the pressurized chemical mixture (known as “slickwater”) causes rock formations deep underground to fracture and open into fissures. Some injected chemicals travel back up, along with naturally occurring ones like benzene and ethylene. The unwanted, chemically laden water and the desirable oil or gas are supposed to be separated. But there are multiple opportunities for failure and release of hazardous materials, Thomas points out, including broken concrete well seals, improper handling and disposal of flow-back water and burning highly carcinogenic compounds. (

VERY INFORMATIVE VIDEO by Dan Thomas on what FRACKING REALLY IS at the link!   (

SNIPPET 3 (in regard to the LACK of environmental safeguards in Alberta) :

There’s nothing that requires them to do a damn thing. There are no duties to protect the environment, there are no duties to use their powers, there’s no duty to enforce.
( (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 10, 2014, 01:44:34 am
Upton is a pro fossil fuel POS that is the Chairman of GUESS WHAT?
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce!
Do your part. Urge Representative (of fossil fuel FRACKING polluters!) to GO AWAY!  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2014, 01:36:11 am
Use by year graph. Use of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid over time. USGS data

Nature | Editorial

Be concerned

A possible link between neonicotinoid pesticide use and a decline in bird numbers is worrying.  :(

09 July 2014
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 12, 2014, 05:39:20 pm
Graphic courtesy of NRDC

8 Summertime Woes That Will Only Get Worse With Climate Change  :( >:(

EcoWatch | July 1, 2014 2:46 pm

With the Forth of July upon us, summer is in full swing, the dog days are heating up and today, the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) released a fact sheet on eight summertime woes that will only get worse with climate change.

NRDC’s fact sheet also includes tips that individuals—as well as the nation—can take to ease the misery, highlighting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

NRDC’s tip sheet highlights the following summertime blues:

1. Heat waves

2. Bad air alert days

3. Ticks and mosquitoes

4. Poison ivy

5. Sneezing and wheezing

6. Food-borne illness

7. Dangerous swimming conditions

8. Ruined visits to national parks and landmarks

“Across America, climate change already is super-charging summer, and with hotter days we’re seeing more risks to our health and happiness,” said Peter Altman, director of NRDC’s Climate Campaign. “We can ease these warm-day woes today, but it would be wrong to doom tomorrow’s families and children to even more heat waves, code red air alerts, disease-carrying ticks, poison ivy rashes, stomach illnesses and degraded national landmarks. That’s not a future they deserve.”( (

Without stronger action on climate change, the summers that lie ahead could very well be unbearable. NRDC’s tip sheet—co-written by two contributing authors to the National Climate Assessment—hopes to help us beat the heat, now and in the future.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2014, 03:39:33 pm
For Immediate Release, July 14, 2014

Contact: Jonathan Evans, Center for Biological Diversity, (415) 436-9682 x 318

Lawsuit Launched to Protect Air Quality in North Carolina

CHARLOTTE, N.C.— The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a formal notice of intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency today for failing to ensure that North Carolinians are protected from lead and ozone air pollution. The EPA has failed to make sure the state has a plan in place to meet Clean Air Act standards formalized eight years ago for lead and ozone pollution, which pose serious threats to public health and ecosystems.

“From the highest peaks of the Smoky Mountains to the beaches of the Outer Banks, clean air is the primary building block for healthy ecosystems and strong communities,” said Jonathan Evans, toxics and endangered species campaign director at the Center. “The EPA needs to take steps right now to implement the Clean Air Act to save lives and protect the environment in North Carolina.”

North Carolina elected officials have become increasingly hostile to federal clean-air laws. On Dec. 26 the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources under Gov. Pat McCrory sued the EPA to loosen air-quality requirements related to dangerous soot called particulate matter. The state legislature introduced the Regulatory Reform Act (Senate Bill 734), which included a requirement that the state eliminate the majority of its 132 air-quality monitors that help ensure clean-air requirements are being met. 

“It’s shameful that the elected officials of North Carolina are working at the beck and call of polluters  :evil4: to roll back clean-air protections for the state,”
said Evans. “Clear skies, healthy families and clean ecosystems shouldn’t be bargained away for the next campaign contribution or Tea Party vote.”

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to identify and set “National Ambient Air Quality Standards” for pollutants such as lead and ozone, both of which cause harm to people, especially sensitive populations such as children and the elderly, and to ecosystems. In North Carolina alone, more than 860,000 people have illnesses like asthma and pulmonary disease that may be the result of ozone pollution and can be exacerbated by the pollutant. Despite improvements in air quality since the state enacted the Clean Smokestacks Act in 2002, regions such as the Charlotte metropolitan area still violate the minimum air-quality standards for ozone.

Lead, which does not break down in the environment, is an extremely toxic element that threatens human health, especially that of children. It disrupts their development, causing slow growth, development defects and damage to the brain and nervous system. Ecosystems near lead sources experience decreases in biodiversity, ecosystem production, and increases in invasive species. Many scientific studies have also expressed concern about sublethal effects of atmospheric lead on wildlife.

Ground-level ozone leads to public health problems, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Ozone reduces lung function, increases respiratory problems like asthma, increases visits to emergency rooms, and can lead to premature death. Repeated exposure to ozone during the growing season damages vegetation and ecosystems. Cumulative ozone exposure can lead to reduced tree growth; visibly injured leaves; and increased susceptibility to disease, damage from insects and harsh weather. Sensitive plant species that are at risk from ozone exposure include trees such as black cherry, quaking aspen, ponderosa pine and cottonwood.

For more on the dangers of lead click here (at link below).

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 775,000 members and supporters dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2014, 03:54:11 pm
For Immediate Release, July 17, 2014

Contact: Mollie Matteson, (802) 318-1487

Lawsuit Filed to Protect Hudson River, Endangered Wildlife From Massive Increase in
 Dangerous Crude Oil Shipments 

NEW YORK— Responding to a massive increase in shipments of highly explosive crude oil along the Hudson River, the Center for Biological Diversity today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency for failing to update their oil-spill plans to ensure that spill-response activities do not harm the many endangered species dependent on the river. The lawsuit, filed under the Endangered Species Act, identifies 17 federally protected endangered species, including Atlantic sturgeon, sea turtles and piping plovers that, like the millions of people living along the river, are threatened by the increased risk of spills.

“With little public scrutiny or input, there’s been a massive increase in transport of highly flammable crude oil by rail and barge, which puts communities, rivers and wildlife in danger,” said Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist at the Center. “We need a spill-response plan that actually protects residents and the precious endangered wildlife of the Hudson and northeast coast — animals like the Atlantic sturgeon, red knot and loggerhead sea turtle. We have to take immediate action to make sure these rare and marvelous creatures aren’t casualties of a reckless industry.”

The amount of crude oil being brought by rail to the port of Albany and then barged down the Hudson to East Coast refineries has jumped from essentially nothing, two years ago, to close to 3 billion gallons a year. The recent history of fiery derailments across North America indicates the urgency of addressing this growing threat to the environment from the rapid increase in oil trains. The U.S. Coast Guard and EPA, lead agencies on the region’s spill-response plan, have not completed required Endangered Species Act consultation to keep up with rapid increases of crude oil cargos from North Dakota and the potential impacts of oil-spill response measures.

“Oil trains pose an enormous danger we can’t overlook,” said Matteson. “Further shipments into Albany and along the Hudson River should be stopped until there’s an adequate plan in place to deal with the spills that are almost certain to occur.”

Since last year a series of fiery oil-train derailments have occurred in the United States and Canada, including a wreck of a 72-tank-car train last year in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec that killed 47 people and incinerated part of the small tourist town. The most recent explosive derailment, on April 30, occurred in downtown Lynchburg, Va., where the James River was set on fire by oil leaking out of punctured tank cars. These accidents pose serious threats to endangered species as well as human communities, and the potential response measures, including the use of dispersants, burning the spilled oil and booming of oil, can directly affect protected species and their critical habitat.

The Hudson River has become a major conduit for crude shipped from the rapidly expanding oil fields of North Dakota and eastern Montana to East Coast refineries. In the wake of explosive derailments and mounting evidence that “Bakken” oil from North Dakota is unusually volatile and dangerous, the federal Department of Transportation has issued a series of safety advisories and called for voluntary reforms from the railroad and oil industries. But the agency has not enacted stronger regulations, despite warnings for years from transportation safety experts, including the National Transportation Safety Board, that tank cars are prone to puncture and rail routes, running through the heart of cities and towns across the country, are ill-placed for shipment of hazardous, volatile materials. 

The Center’s lawsuit identifies 17 federally protected endangered species, including shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, sea turtles, whales, roseate tern and piping plover, that are threatened not only by the increased risk of spills from oil trains, barges and tanker ships, but by response measures that often do more harm than good.

The Coast Guard and EPA have never completed formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on the potential impact of oil-spill response on the protected species. 2010’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that oil-spill responses can sometimes be as harmful to wildlife as the original spill; the use of chemical dispersants and burning of spilled oil, in particular, proved to be lethal to numerous marine species, protected sea turtles among them. The Center's complaint seeks to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated in the Hudson River region.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

More EXTERNALIZED costs courtesy of the FOSSIL FUEL FORKS! I'm glad to see another lawsuit addressing this MURDER of a part of our biosphere for short term profit.
Title: Re: Pollution from Pipelines 1986-2013
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2014, 07:45:55 pm

Many excellent and revealing graphics at link. See what exactly has caused the deaths, injuries and environmental damage:  >:(
Title: In Harm's Way: Rare Species in the path of the Keystone Death Pipeline
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2014, 08:37:06 pm
Title: Friends SOON TO BE dead ENDS, thanks to the FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY...
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2014, 09:12:52 pm
More EXTERNALIZED COSTS in the deadly service of fossil fuel short term profits.  >:(

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 21, 2014, 07:48:44 pm
In less than 2 minutes, this video says what Words cannot express... (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 26, 2014, 09:27:32 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2014, 12:16:24 am
How Dangerous is Air Pollution?   ???

Air pollution is even more dangerous than smoking in terms of causing cancer, according to 2013 conclusions from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancers (IARC). Outdoor air pollution as a whole is considered a carcinogen more harmful than cigarette smoking because of the unavoidable nature of breathing in polluted air on a regular basis from sources such as power plants, transportation, and agricultural and industrial emissions. Air pollution caused approximately 3.2 million deaths in 2010, including 223,000 from lung cancer, according to estimates from WHO.

More about air pollution:

•Pregnant women exposed to high levels of air pollution were found to be 22% more likely to have premature babies, according to a research study of European women from 1994 through 2011.

•WHO estimates that about 25% of all stroke deaths worldwide are attributed to indoor air pollution, such as burning solid fuels indoors for heat or cooking.

•Over 65,000 Americans are estimated to have heart attacks or other cardiac events as a result of exposure to air pollution, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

MORE "EXTERNALIZED" costs for the "profitable" Fossil Fuel Marquis de Sades  >:(  :(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2014, 11:57:06 pm
The Vatican is on the right track!

Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution

By Philip Pullella

(Reuters) - Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of "new" sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Asked what he believed were today's "new sins," he told the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

"(Within bioethics) there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control," he said.

The Vatican opposes stem cell research that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.

Girotti, in an interview headlined "New Forms of Social Sin," also listed "ecological" offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green".

It has installed photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels.  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

Girotti, who is number two in the Vatican "Apostolic Penitentiary," which deals with matter of conscience, also listed drug trafficking and social and economic injustices as modern sins. (

How about that! Those fish eaters (West Point cadet slang for Catholics) actually beat the Druids!  ;D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 28, 2014, 12:17:24 am
Thank God for a pope than CAN ADD AND SUBTRACT!   (
Title: Styrofoam Listed As Human Carcinogen
Post by: AGelbert on July 30, 2014, 07:15:29 pm
(   Styrofoam Listed As Human Carcinogen News

Every time a town or city tries to ban take-out styrene (styrofoam) containers there's pushback, but research provides fresh evidence about this problematic, unnecessary material.

The US National Toxicology Program has decided to list styrene conservatively as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." We've long known that cancer rates are higher in and near styrene manufacturing plants, but it can also leach into hot foods from cups, plates and clamshells. 



Scientists say the listing is supported by "limited but credible" evidence of carcinogenicity in human studies, "sufficient" evidence from animal studies, and "convincing relevant information" in studies that observe DNA damage in human cells exposed to styrene.   

It's also linked to vision and hearing loss, impaired memory and concentration, and nervous system issues. Then there's the environmental problem - it never degrades and is rarely recycled.

The substance is of interest because it's so widespread. Besides being the key ingredient in styrofoam, it's used to make a raft of products: plastic containers (look for #6 on the bottom), refrigerator lining, insulation, carpet, latex paint, synthetic rubber and construction materials like pipes, fittings, and lighting fixtures. You can also be exposed to it from cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust and as a by-product of incinerating products that contain it. 

 One of NYC Mayor Bloomberg's last actions was to ban Styrofoam - which the city tosses out 23,000 tons of each year - and Seattle did so years ago. Recently, Portland, Maine  followed suit. McDonald's is finally phasing it out and Dell ditched it in favor of mushroom packaging awhile ago. Leading sports arenas no longer allow it; six of the biggest public school districts in the US are transitioning to compostable dishware and hospitals are also moving away from it.

Not surprisingly, the ubiquitous product remains common because of industry lobbying.

Learn more about styrene:

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2014, 01:37:41 am

GOLD BUG --> (      ( (            (  <--- ME

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 04, 2014, 10:24:39 pm
Taxpayers Clean Up Corporate Pollution, Is That Right?  ??? News
Title: RIP: The woman you never heard of... who changed our world!
Post by: AGelbert on August 05, 2014, 03:14:09 pm
RIP: The woman you never heard of... who changed our world!     (
Title: The REAL world of human polluting stupidity
Post by: AGelbert on August 10, 2014, 04:21:44 am
Title: Must-See Video: Arctic Emergency, Scientists Speak
Post by: AGelbert on August 10, 2014, 08:09:52 pm
Must-See Video: Arctic Emergency, Scientists Speak

Donna Lisenby | August 5, 2014 8:06 am
Title: Keystone Pipeline is 400% WORSE than estimated by our State Department!
Post by: AGelbert on August 13, 2014, 07:45:40 pm
Title: The Apocalypse for Bats?
Post by: AGelbert on August 22, 2014, 05:24:21 pm
The Apocalypse for Bats?   ???

Posted on August 22, 2014

Regarded by many as disease-carrying pests, bats are often feared and hated among the human populace. Yet, what many people fail to realize is that they play a vital role in our fragile ecosystem — they pollinate flowers, help disperse fruit seeds and eat insect pests, reducing the need for pesticides. With about 1,240 bat species worldwide, they are often taken for granted. Now, they are in major danger.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 22, 2014, 06:04:59 pm
Flesh Eating Bacteria (

How do you get it?  (

An infection often occurs after eating raw seafood, especially raw or undercooked oysters. But be warned — this bacteria does not alter the appearance, taste, or odor of oysters. It can also enter your body through open wounds when swimming in water that is infected, or through a puncture wound from the spines of fish, such as tilapia or stingrays.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 25, 2014, 10:05:09 pm
Tar sands, trade rules and the gutting of human rights for corporate profit (

Hundreds of Methane Plumes Erupting Along East Coast (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 25, 2014, 10:30:10 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 28, 2014, 06:43:16 pm

Methane Monster’s Grumbling Goes Global: 570 Methane Plumes Discovered on Atlantic Ocean Sea Floor (

The 'Yellow Dragon' Threatens Florida's Citrus Industry- invasive asian insect. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2014, 08:57:09 pm
Drought Conditions Wreak Havoc On Latin America- Sao Paulo running out of water, crop losses as high as 70 percent (  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 03, 2014, 05:19:40 pm
Wildfire near California-Oregon border 'extreme,' firefighters say
Title: China’s ‘War on Pollution’ Helps Kick Coal Habit
Post by: AGelbert on September 05, 2014, 01:50:56 pm
China’s ‘War on Pollution’ Helps Kick Coal Habit  (

Kieran Cooke, Climate News Network | September 5, 2014 9:45 am

There are still doubts. The statistics might be proved wrong. But it looks as if China might be starting to wean itself off its coal consumption habit. (

China produces and consumes nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined.
  ( Coal, the most polluting of all energy sources, has powered the growth of China’s flyaway economy. But as incomes have risen, so has pollution. The country is now the world’s No.1 emitter of greenhouse gases. (

Latest figures indicate that change is on the way, spurred on by a much-vaunted government “war on pollution” campaign. The state-run National Development and Reform Commission reports that domestic coal output shrank over the first five months of 2014—the first such decline since the start of China’s rapid economic expansion back in the late 1980s.

Virtual Halt

Greenpeace, the environmental NGO, said in a recent analysis of China’s coal sector that growth in coal imports, which had been going up at an annual rate of between 13 percent and 20 percent in recent years, has come to a virtual halt.(

Meanwhile, the official Xinhua news agency says Beijing—a city of nearly 12 million people—will ban the sale and use of coal in its six main districts by 2020.

Coal-fired factories and power plants around the Chinese capital are being shut down and replaced by natural gas facilities. Coal generated 25 percent of Beijing’s energy in 2012, and the aim is to bring that figure down to less than 10 percent by 2017. Other cities and regions are following Beijing’s lead.

Just how meaningful these cutbacks in coal use are is difficult to gauge. Air pollution—much of it caused by the burning of low-grade thermal coal—is not only a big environmental issue in China but also a political one as well.

China’s leaders have promised a population increasingly angry about the low quality of the air they breathe and the water they drink that the government is determined to tackle pollution.

Yet coal-fired power plants are still being built at a considerable pace, and many more are planned.

Some analysts argue that the present slowdown in China’s coal consumption is only temporary, the result of a dip in industrial output that will be reversed as soon as the economy roars ahead again.

Less Reliant

Others say the decline in coal consumption is part of a long-term trend. As China’s economy matures, becoming less dependent on heavy industrial goods and embarking on more hi-tech and service-oriented projects, the country will become ever more energy efficient—and less reliant on coal.

China might be the world’s biggest emitter of fossil fuel emissions, but it also has fast become a global leader in hydro, wind and solar power.

No one is suggesting that coal is going to be absent from China’s energy mix anytime soon. The lung-jarring pollution of many of China’s cities is likely still to be evident for some years yet. But coal is no longer king.

That’s bad news for big coal exporters to China, particularly Australia and Indonesia.  (
But it’s potentially good news for millions in China who crave clean air. And it’s very good news for the planet.  ;D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 06, 2014, 06:32:11 pm
Pacific tuna stocks on the brink of disaster, warns outgoing fisheries head ( (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 08, 2014, 06:47:36 pm
MORE externalized COSTS courtesy of the Fossil Fuel Industry...  ( (
This was 2012. If you think that was an "anomaly" never to be repeated, then you believe there really is a tiger in your tank. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 12, 2014, 02:39:41 pm
The Eruption Grows Stronger :o - Norway and Sweden are getting "Plumed"

Full Story with ominous unusual and unexplained (yet) water temperature rise  ( as well as plume track animation and MANY pictures!
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 15, 2014, 06:24:44 pm
What is the most Critically endangered of the worl's small cetacean species?    ( (

The  vaquita Phocoena sinus is the most critically endangered of the world’s small cetacean species. Its distribution is limited to the Upper Gulf of California, Mexico, and its total population is estimated at about 150 individuals. The biggest threat vaquitas encounter is drowning in gillnets used by local fishermen. While Mexico’s government has declared this species to be a high conservation priority, saving it from extinction requires unprecedented international technical, economic, and political cooperation to ensure local sustainable livelihoods.  (

Hey Homo SAPS, I DIE in your nets! I guess that means I'm not "Fit" for SURVIVAL in your highly "evolved" apex predator industrialized profit over planet world, RIGHT?  >:(  You biosphere math challenged morons  ( are killing your future by allowing me to be killed along with thousands of other earthlings. (
Nevertheless, I am consoled that at least some of you can add and subtract (see video  ( below). But make no mistake, if it's too late for me and my kind, it's also too late for your kind. Have a nice day.

(  (
Vaquita is pronounced NOT like VUH-QUIT-A  (; it's proper pronunciation is Va-Key-Tuh.  8)
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 18, 2014, 11:54:21 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 25, 2014, 08:03:02 pm

"I have never seen this number of bodies before;" MSF has had to import an incinerator from Europe - normally used for livestock" (

Climate Scientists Seen As Trustworthy by Americans, Contrary To Reporting (

Cargill promises to stop chopping down rainforests. This is huge. (

For Oil and Gas Companies, Rigging Seems to Involve Wages, Too (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2014, 12:31:45 am
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2014, 01:38:00 am
Coal Burning Power Plant Pollutes Community with Coal Ash.  >:(

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2014, 08:21:02 pm
EPA knew pesticides were killing honeybees in the 1970s but punished those who spoke out  (

For decades, top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (PEA) were aware that a compound approved for agricultural use in the United States was wiping out the honeybee population, but they chose to ignore the compound's effects in deference to pressure from agri-giant corporations.

Worse, the agency reacted harshly to anyone within the EPA who attempted to bring the issue to light, including through firings, forced reassignments and other actions.

According to a scholarly 2014 study [PDF] compiled by researcher Rosemary Mason, "on behalf of a global network of independent scientists, beekeepers and environmentalists," and published on the website of MIT, "We have found historical and chronological evidence to show that the herbicide glyphosate (or other herbicides that are used as alternatives) is responsible for the transformation of garden escapes into super-weeds (in the UK these are termed 'invasive species')."

Further, Mason and her team noted that glyphosate -- the primary substance found in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide -- was introduced in Europe in 1974 "and became a global best-selling herbicide because the public was told by industry and the regulators that it was 'safe.'"

The results have been disastrous. For one, the heavy use of glyphosate has led to the rise of so-called "superweeds" that are resistant to the herbicide. But there is another compound that was approved by the EPA -- over the objections of scientists -- that has had a devastating effect on the nation's honeybee population: clothianidin, which is used for seed treatment on corn and canola, by Bayer.

'Honeybees are going extinct'

According to this EPA document describing clothianidin [PDF], it "is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis," and "has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen."

"In honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen," the document further states.

Mason and her research team found additional evidence of corporate/EPA cover-up regarding the effects of clothianidin. This 99-page EPA memorandum dated November 2, 2010, [PDF] noted, in part:

The major risk concerns are with aquatic free-swimming and benthic invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, birds and mammals. ...

Clothianidin's major risk concern is to non-target insects (that is, honey bees). Clothianidin is a neonicotinoid insecticide that is both persistent and systemic. Acute toxicity studies to honey bees show that clothianidin is highly toxic on both a contact and an oral basis. ... nformation from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides (e.g., imidacloprid) suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.

A number of EPA scientists -- those with integrity, anyway -- have tried along the way to sound the alarm -- over both glyphosate and clothianidin. In a piece for "" evaggelos-vallianatos="" honeybees-on-the-verge-of_b_4326226.html"="" target="_blank">The Huffington Post, former EPA scientist Evaggelos Vallianatos wrote that honeybees were on the verge of extinction.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 04, 2014, 07:45:04 pm
Endangered Sea Turtles Are Getting Nasty, Deadly Tumors, and We’re to Blame  :(
Healthy Sea Turtle

by Alicia Graef
October 3, 2014

In sad news for sea turtles, scientists have found that runoff from cities and farms in Hawaii is causing debilitating and deadly tumors, which are believed to be the leading known cause of death for endangered green sea turtles.

Scientists from Duke University, the University of Hawaii and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) teamed up to study what’s causing the tumor-forming disease Fibropapillomatosis, which is clearly a major problem for sea turtles.

The study, published this week in the journal PeerJ, found that nitrogen runoff is ending up in algae that sea turtles eat, which is causing the tumors to grow both internally and externally on their eyes and flippers. According to NOAA, these tumors can interfere with their ability to eat and other essential behaviors, while tumors on their eyes can cause permanent blindness. While it’s a major problem for green turtles in Hawaii, it’s also been found in other places and in other species of sea turtles, including loggerhead, olive ridley and flatback turtles.

Credit: Chris Starkis/Duke University

“We’re drawing direct lines from human nutrient inputs to the reef ecosystem, and how it affects wildlife,” said Kyle Van Houtan, the study’s lead author, who is also a scientist in NOAA’s Turtle Research Program.

Building on previous research that found the disease was more common in areas with high levels of runoff, researchers tested the hypothesis that the disease might be linked to how algae that the turtles eat stores extra nitrogen.

Algae can store excess nitrogen in arginine, an amino acid, and as they explain in a statement, they found unusually high levels of arginine both in the algae in highly polluted waters and in the tumors of diseased turtles, while levels in cleaner water and tumor-free turtles were comparatively low. Researchers believe arginine is responsible for promoting a virus that causes the tumor-forming disease, although it’s still unclear exactly how it causes the tumors.

Adding to the problem is a non-native red algae that is thriving with the excess nitrogen and taking over native algae that turtles need. The red algae has been found to hold especially high levels of arginine, which researchers believe can make up 90 percent of the turtles’ diet. According to Van Houtan, as a result turtles have approximately 14 times more arginine in their systems than they would if they were eating native algae species in less-polluted waters.

More worrisome is that green turtles, who are uniquely herbivorous sea turtles and only eat plants, have to eat twice as much of the invasive algae to get the same benefit they would from native algae, which is compounding the problem.

Researchers hope this work will help lead to a better understanding of how to protect sea turtles, and other marine plants and animals, that are threatened by pollution.

“It’s not just green turtles, but fish and coral reefs that have similar diseases in these locations,” said Van Houtan, who added that he hopes future research delving into this problem can help impact how we manage reef systems.  “If research continues to support this hypothesis, we probably need to reconsider our current ways of managing coastal nutrients,” he said. (

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing 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! (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 07, 2014, 01:27:17 am
Help stop Global Warming.
Title: Town in Japan uses 34 DIFFERENT recycle bins to achieve ZERO waste!
Post by: AGelbert on October 23, 2014, 08:41:39 pm
Zero Wasters Dream! 

 This is the most comprehensive zero waste effort we have come across: a whole town in Japan that generates NO garbage. (  ;D (

 In Kamikatsu Japan residents must compost all their own organic waste, there are no collection bins.

 But this is the real game changer: the town has a sorting center with 34 different categories to deposit your non-organic waste! A bin for razors, a bin for batteries, a bin for bottle caps, a mountain of neatly stacked newspapers and more.

 Remember: garbage is a new thing. A few hundred years ago, every place, although not necessarily sanitary, was more or less "zero waste".  (

 --Bibi Farber

This video was produced by the BBC
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 27, 2014, 03:15:25 pm

10 Reasons to Turn Off an Idling Car

Sponsored Content by Sustainable America | October 26, 2014 10:08 pm

It happens, we know. You’re picking up a friend, waiting for a food order or just trying to warm up your car on cold morning—and you leave it running for a little while. It’s easy to let those minutes tick by, but getting into the habit of ( turning your car off when you’ll be idle for more than 10 seconds can make a big difference.

Here’s why:  (

1. It saves gas: If you idle for 5 minutes warming up your car in the morning, 3 minutes at the bank drive-thru and 4 minutes listening to the end of an NPR story in your driveway, you’ve burned enough gas to drive 24 miles.

2. It saves money: (  Americans spend a whopping $13 million every day on unnecessary idling. (That’s 3.8 million gallons of fuel, wasted!) Also, idling is actually illegal in some states, and violators can pay steep fines if caught.

3. It saves the planet: For every 10 minutes of idling you cut from your life, you’ll save one pound of carbon dioxide—a harmful greenhouse gas—from being released into the atmosphere.

4. It makes us healthier: Idling is linked to increases in asthma, allergies, heart and lung disease and cancer. Kids are especially vulnerable because they inhale more air per pound of body weight, and lots of idling happens near schools.

5. It makes us smarter: Breathing exhaust fumes can damage brain cells and may be linked to autism. A study in New York City showed that kids with a high exposure to combustion engine byproducts had lower IQs by age 5.

6. It’s good for your engine: Idling can damage engine components. According to the California Energy Commission, “Fuel is only partially combusted when idling because an engine does not operate at its peak temperature. This leads to the build up of fuel residues on cylinder walls that can damage engine components and increase fuel consumption.” And did you know that today’s cars warm up more efficiently when they’re driving than sitting in a driveway? They do.

7. It’s quieter: Noise is pollution, too.

8. It’s contagious: Turning off the car sets a good example for your kids and other passengers, and gives a chance for you to educate them about the dangers of idling.

9. It doesn’t stink: Do you enjoy breathing in exhaust fumes? Yuck.

10. It’s easy: Just turn the key when you’ll be stopped for more than 10 seconds. That’s all there is to it.

Sustainable America is committed to helping the United States reduce its oil consumption by 50 percent by 2035. Big changes like more electric vehicles and smarter traffic technology are necessary to getting there, but conservation measures like hypermiling, ecodriving and curbing idling are all important ways individuals can do their part on a daily basis. Be part of the solution by taking our pledge to Turn It Off when you’ll be idle for more than 10 seconds. You can even order a bumper sticker so you can help spread the anti-idling message in your community.

Agelbert comment: Great Article!  And we have another excellent and practical reason to NEVER leave a car idling while one goes into a store or to get a cup of coffee in Vermont.

It's illegal! The cops will give you fossil fuelers a nice fat ticket!

Vermont is shooting for 90% Renewable Energy. We mean business and we are NOT kidding here.  ( ( (

"May 5, 2014 - It's now illegal to idle your car for more than five minutes during a one-hour period in Vermont.

The law is meant to cut down on carbon emissions and save fuel. Violators will receive a $10 ticket for the first offense, $50 for the second and $100 for the third.

There are exceptions. Police, fire and other emergency vehicles do not have to adhere to the rule."

Remember, every gallon of gas you DON'T burn is LESS profit over planet the fossil fuel industry has to BUY our Politicians and degrade our Democracy.

Don't just sit there, get this law passed for your state too!  Future Generations will thank you!
Title: Recycle yourself.
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2014, 01:55:00 am
Dust To Dust?

How can we rest peacefully if what we're told in this video is true:

Each year in the United States, the funeral industry dumps into the earth:
- 827,000 gallons of formaldehyde
- 30 million board feet of hardwood caskets
- 17,000 tons of steel/copper vaults
- 1.6 million tons of concrete

And this doesn't begin to address the copious amounts of herbicides and pesticides used to keep those lawns perfect and green. Welcome to Green Springs Natural Cemetery, in New York state where they offer a simple, traditional, dust-to-dust burial, free of toxins.

t's far less expensive than a conventional cemetery as well, at $500 a plot. This land is protected from future development by the fact that they inherit nature preserve status, so the inhabitants can indeed rest peacefully! -- Bibi Farber For more information see:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 03, 2014, 08:15:58 pm

Rotten odors rouse citizen sleuths in Pennsylvania gas patch  (

Full story here: (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 09, 2014, 05:57:47 pm
Some Good News From the Midterm Elections ( News

There's good news on the local level from the midterm elections in addition to the fracking and GMO crop bans we've written about. 

Florida approved an amendment to the state constitution that permanently sets aside funding to protect and restore watersheds and habitats - including the Everglades - which could add up to $20 billion. Voters in 19 states approved 35 land and water protection measures, the most in any election to date. Check out for details.

 In the small city of Richmond, California, all eyes were on Chevron's attempt to buy the local election. Even spending $3 million to control the outcome - electing a mayor and city council who would be more "friendly" to the company - didn't win over voters.   

After decades punctuated by blow-outs at Chevron's massive oil refinery there - sending 15000 people to the hospital in 2012 - the city sued and has been working to tighten regulations. Instead of cleaning up its act, Chevron blanketed residents with attack ads against Tom Butt, who raised $58,000. 

And Chevron lost! Tom Butt won the mayoral election 51% to 35%, and the entire "Team Richmond" won by big margins. 

In Alaska, voters said YES to a ballot measure that allows the  state legislature to ban Pebble Mine if it would endanger the salmon population. Currently, only federal and state agencies control mining permits.

 This largest open-pit mine in North America - up to 2 miles long, 1.5 miles wide, and 1700 feet deep - would extract copper, gold and molybdenum in the heart of the world's largest remaining wild sockeye salmon runs.

While the EPA is trying to block it, lawsuits could make that impossible. Thus, the referendum, which passed 65% to 35%.

 Voters also approved raising the minimum wage and legalized recreational marijuana!

Move to Amend

Voters in Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly for their state legislatures to pass constitutional amendments that overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

"Money in politics affects our lives everyday," says Donna Richards of Move to Amend. "We pay too much for healthcare. Our taxes go towards corporate welfare and wars, instead of education and protecting our environment. Our energy policy is dictated by Big Oil, and we can't even pass reasonable gun background checks because the gun manufacturers have bought half of Congress. This isn't what democracy looks like."

 54 communities in Wisconsin alone have voted in favor of an amendment, representing 41% of residents. 16 state legislatures have voted for an amendment, as well as almost 600 towns, villages, cities and other organizations.

 "Nearly all Americans share the sentiment that corporations should not have the same rights as people, and big money in politics should be removed," states Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, National Director of Move to Amend. "It is time for Congress to pass the We the People Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. The leadership of both parties need to realize that their voters are clamoring for this amendment, and we are only going to get louder."

Agelbert NOTE: Don't hold your breath waiting for the fossil fuel fascist Federal Government and their handmaidens in the irreparably Corrupt Court System to slow Chevron polluting down or get corporations off their "personhood" in the service of profit over people and planet.

Tom Butt   Chevron blanketed residents with attack ads against Tom Butt, who raised $58,000.

Tom Butt , the new Mayor of Richmond, California, now is a marked man for fossil fuel skullduggery. (  >:(  If you live in or near Richmond, HELP THIS GOOD MAN!   (
 People like him are few and far between. (

Tom Butt: California Attorney General Greenlights Chevron EIR

Posted by Radio Free Richmond 10sc on June 23, 2014 (

Two weeks after issuing a 10-page detailed letter highly critical of the Chevron Modernization Draft EIR, the California Attorney General’s Office issue a second letter on June 20, 2014, confirming that all the attorney general’s concerns had been addressed in the Final EIR.

The second letter focused on Alternative 6.5.11, which combines the sulfur processing alternative with no physical increase in greenhouse gas emissions from refinery operations. Alternative 6.5.11 would require Chevron to keep physical emissions of GHGs from Refinery operations at no higher than baseline levels, require no net increase in GHG emissions from any production of hydrogen for export and require that Chevron implement all of the Final EIR’s GHG mitigation measures, including the funding of community-based GHG reduction programs.

Click here for the June 20, letter from the attorney general, which concludes, “Based on our review of the Final EIR and the above understandings, the AGO supports the adoption of Alternative 6.5.11. Adoption of this alternative, along with other improvements made in the Final EIR and the improvements referenced in footnote 2, would resolve the AGO’s concerns associated with the City’s review and approval of this project.”

It appears the first letter from the attorney general was dated June 6, three days before the Final EIR was released on June 9, which was confusing because June 7-8 was a weekend, so the first AG letter and the release of the Final EIR were almost simultaneous. It was widely assumed that the first AG letter addressed the Final EIR rather than the Draft EIR.

It is currently anticipated that the Planning Commission will have one or more hearings the consider certifying the EIR and approving a conditional use permit the week of July 7 and that, if appealed, the Planning Commission’s decision would go to the City Council before the end of July for final action.

Tom Butt E-Forum  ( - Sunday, June 22, 2014

Title: Vermonters Save. Polluters Pay. It’s that simple.
Post by: AGelbert on November 13, 2014, 08:45:59 pm

I just signed this petition [] for a new Vermont campaign to put a price on carbon pollution.   ( I know that, like me, you are concerned about global warming. This is a really important chance for Vermont to do something real about it. I urge you to take action yourself and spread the word!  You can learn more about the Energy Independent Vermont campaign at (

Sign the Energy Independent Vermont petition with the Sierra Club

Dear Friends,
As Vermonters, we know the damage global warming can cause. Climate change is no longer a thing of the future, it is affecting Vermont now. Tropical Storm Irene took lives, leveled homes, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the Vermont Climate Assessment:

• the average annual temperature in Vermont has increased by 1.3° F since 1960; 45% of this change is since 1990;

• warmer temperatures have caused later “first-fall freeze” and earlier “last-spring freeze”; and

• since 1960, the average annual precipitation has increased 5.9 inches.

The Vermont that we know will change before our eyes. We simply can’t afford to wait any longer to address climate change. And, with more climate-change deniers than ever heading to Congress,
it’s clearly up to states like Vermont to lead the way to find real solutions.

That’s why the Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club is partnering with other environmental groups, low-income advocates, businesses, and knowledgeable academics to launch a new campaign – Energy Independent Vermont. I’m asking you to join us NOW.

Sign the Energy Independent Vermont petition to Vermont’s incoming legislators asking them to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and pass a carbon pollution tax in Vermont.

Our plan tackles the root of the problem–polluting fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies are making massive profits while we pay the price, with floods, super storms, droughts, and wildfires becoming more frequent and intense. It’s time to put a price on carbon pollution and make them ( pay.  (

With a tax on polluters, the state can establish an Energy Independence Fund to make smart investments in our communities—like helping Vermonters save money by making their homes more efficient and switching to clean energy, and making public buildings (like schools) more efficient to save us all money on our property taxes.

And, we’re proposing that the rest of the money go to cut other taxes that Vermonters and Vermont businesses already pay. Vermonters Save. Polluters Pay. It’s that simple.

But even in Vermont, bold policies don’t just happen. And dirty energy companies will fight us every step of the way. After all, it is their profits on the line.  (

Your part starts by simply signing onto this petition. Our goal is to gather 1,000 signatures in the first week of the campaign.

Let’s remember what’s at stake here. We owe it to our children to protect them from the effects of climate change, and that means taking action now before it’s too late.

Thanks for signing on.

Mark Nelson

Chair, Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club

P.S. If you want to help the Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club raise awareness about this campaign please contact Vermont Organizing Representative Robb Kidd at

Explore, Enjoy, and Protect the Planet   (

Sierra Club 85 Second St., 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 14, 2014, 10:56:59 pm

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 23, 2014, 02:46:30 pm
Gasland FULL FILM! (

Brilliant, Must See Film (

 This exceptional film, Gasland, directed by Josh Fox, is one of the reasons New York State has rallied and managed to maintain a moratorium on fracking.

 Nominated for an Oscar in 2011, this film is a dramatic and literally explosive story about fracking. It's also just a brilliant, extremely engaging film - outrageous subject matter aside.

 Welcome into the homes of people all along the Marcellus Shale who's health, land, pets and livestock have been sickened beyond words by the staggering amount of chemicals used in the dangerous hydraulic fracturing process.

 Yes, you will see people's water light on fire, coming right out of the tap. But that's a parlor trick compared to the frightening effect of the overall picture Fox presents on the state of fracking in the US.

 Get ready to be shocked and outraged at what you learn here.  :o  >:(

 "It's amazing that what took mother nature millions of years to build can be destroyed in a few hours of a piece of heavy machinery" says one of the regretful landowners who signed away his rights. (                                     (

 For more information and to learn about the recently released Gasland Part 2,

 --Bibi Farber
- See more at:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 26, 2014, 08:37:29 pm

Shaking Oil’s Grip  (

Margaret Brown

Article that accompanies video:

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 29, 2014, 02:39:47 pm
On the left is an aerial photo and on the right is a cancerous liver...
Stunning Aerial Photos Show How Factory Farms Ravage the Earth (at link)

Anastasia Pantsios | November 28, 2014 2:59 pm

Industrial-grade production of livestock animals has become the norm in the U.S. with 99 percent of all farmed animals raised on giant factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations).

Tascosa Feed Yard- Bushland- Texas_900

Tascosa Feedyard, Bushland, Texas. Photo credit: Mishka Henner

These feedlots confine thousands of animals in small spaces before they are slaughtered, leading to a litany of abuses: the confinement inflicted on the animals, the use of preventive antibiotics to control the spread of diseases in such close quarters, poor working conditions and worker abuse, destruction of rural communities, small towns and family farms, overconsumption of resources, legendary “manure lagoons” stinking up the countryside holding animal waste unsuitable for fertilizer because of the way they are raised and fed, and climate change-inducing greenhouse gases they produce.

Randall County Feedyard- Texas_900-1

Randall County Feedyard, Texas. Photo credit: Mishka Henner

British artist Mishka Henner, who has had a longtime fascination with the interaction of human activity and the landscape, was flying over the country looking for satellite images of oil fields when the feed lots caught his eye and he began to photograph them and learn more about them. His photos combine an abstract visual beauty with a visceral revulsion to the activities they depict.

“The feedlots are a brilliant representation of how abstract our food industry has come,” Henner told Business Insider. “It’s an efficient system for extracting the maximum yield from animals. That’s the world we live in now. We want to extract the maximum yield from everything (, no matter what business you are in.”  (

Conorado Feeders- Dalhart- Texas_900

Coronado Feeders, Dalhart, Texas. Photo credit: Mishka Henner

Seven states now have so called “ag-gag” laws    ( which prohibit any kind of filming or recording of these farms, after videos by groups like Mercy for Animals produced an outcry of demands for laws ending the abuses of the CAFOs. Henner did not physically set foot on any of the farms, but he says he’s been warned that his photos might violate these laws and that they are one reason they have not been more widely seen. But you can find out more about his photos and purchase prints here. He is represented by the Bruce Silverstein Gallery in New York.

Aglbert NOTE: Fascism reaches its EFFICIENT hand of profit over people and planet into all corners of society. And it uses the COURT SYSTEM to do it! (

Fascist Big Ag uses Food Disparagement Law and the Patriot Act to threaten Truth tellers! (

( (

Don't count on our Court System to defend Americans from Fascism - Here's why the solution to Corporate Profit over Planet is EX CURIA (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 30, 2014, 01:50:29 am
Who will pay for climate change?
November 25, 2013 10:13 PM

"But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust. 'Might makes right,' and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies." Adin Ballou


"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Abraham Lincoln

At the moment the rich and the poor countries are fighting over who will pay for the damage that our collapsing climate is inflicting on the world.
Who should pay?

When I read that the United States was reneging on its obligation to pay into a $100-billion fund to help poor countries cut emissions and adapt themselves to a changing climate, it reminded me of something from 40 years ago.

 The year was 1973 and our war against Vietnam was winding down. President Nixon secretly promised to pay the Vietnamese nation $3.3 billion in reconstruction aid. We never paid a dime of it. We promised but did not pay.

Who cares?

We rarely find truth and justice outside of fairy tales and Hollywood movies. In real life, it is the rich and the powerful who often decide what is right. Might does make right. And who will tell them different? Are we Americans going to rise up and demand that Obama pay money to the poor countries that are suffering and will continue to suffer as our climate disintegrates? Why would we do that?

How many Americans would ever demand we do the right thing by other nations, knowing that it might negatively impact us? It would never happen. We believe in justice when we are wronged, but seldom when we are wrong. Let us be real.

We attacked an innocent nation in Southeast Asia, ended up killing three million men, women and children and "sprayed more than 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other herbicides over parts of southern Vietnam and along the borders of neighboring Laos and Cambodia. The herbicides were contaminated with dioxin, a deadly compound that remains toxic for decades and causes birth defects, cancer and other illnesses. "To this day, dioxin continues to poison the land and the people. The United States has never accepted responsibility for these victims - it denies that Agent Orange is responsible for diseases among Vietnamese that are accepted as Agent Orange-caused among American veterans."

We do not care what we do to others

We did that to one nation. One of dozens. Just about every nation in our hemisphere has a story to tell about how we brutalized them at one time in their history. Believe it or not, I do not say this with any malice or judgment. It is just a fact and one we conveniently and perversely ignore. We are a self-interested nation. We look out for us. Any damage we do to another nation in the pursuit of our interests is forgettable. Forgotten. By Americans anyway.  (  (

Climate change is real. Most of the CO2 in our atmosphere came from America. This is a fact.
China is the main polluter but they have a long way to go to catch up to us in total accumulated pollution. And when we consider per capita in the world's major nations, no one will ever catch us. Look in the mirror. Each of us on average exceeds the average of every other nation's citizens. We win. We are the worst. As Americans we love to blame others but we hate to take responsibility.

As a nation, we have no plans to take responsibility for our contribution for climate change. Ever. And most Americans will never lose sleep feeling guilty about it. We don't take responsibility for our actions in the world. We get defensive. We deny, avoid and evade. And focus elsewhere. And that is human nature. It is what we do. It is what everyone does.

Governments will argue about it for the next few years until eventually it won't matter anymore. Our climate will keep changing until the culprits become irrelevant.

Should the rich pay the poor for what they have done to them?

"Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Warsaw have split over who should pay for the damage caused by climate change. Developing countries have drawn a 'red line' on the issue of loss and damage. They say the US, EU, Australia and other developed nations should take responsibility for the damage caused by their emissions.  (

"The Guardian's John Vidal reports from Warsaw that loss and damage is a defining issue for developing countries.

"'This is a red line for us,' said Munjural Khan, a spokesman for the Least Developed Countries (LDC). 'We have been thinking of ways to harden our position, to the point of walking out of the negotiations.'

"But Vidal says that wealthy nations have been similarly intransigent.

" Meanwhile, "Newly leaked documents have revealed how U.S. negotiators at the U.N. climate summit in Warsaw are opposing efforts to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

"According to an internal U.S. briefing memo seen by Democracy Now!, the U.S. delegation  ( is worried  ;) the talks in Warsaw will 'focus increasingly on blame and liability' and that poor nations will be 'seeking redress   ( for climate damages  from sea level rise, droughts, powerful storms and other adverse impacts.'"
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 02, 2014, 07:41:48 pm
(  (

OMG I Thought You Were Dead!

David Guggenheim | December 2, 2014 9:15 am

Great article at link:  8)
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2014, 09:04:44 pm
The Battle to Save The Arctic - Trailer
World’s Best Climate Films Featured to Coincide With Lima Climate Talks
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2014, 11:34:54 pm

Nature's Grand Molecular Disassemblers 

  Paul Stamets  (, mycologist, author and advocate of bioremediation and medicinal mushrooms, offers us a fascinating story in this video.

 His research proves again and again that mushrooms are exquisitely well designed for breaking down a whole suite of hydrocarbon based contaminants: PCP's, PCP's, dioxins, all pesticides, most herbicides, petroleum based fuels, diesel and gasoline.

 There was a diesel contamination spill at a transportation yard. It was so toxic that it was off limits. They invited 6 biomediation companies to have a contest: Who could break down the diesel contaminated soil the best?  ???

 6 piles were created and everyone applied their treatment. All were fairly conventional methods except for the mushrooms.

4 weeks later, scientists and government officials went to see the results.

Not only did gigantic oyster mushrooms start growing happily in that pile, which was the only one that didn't still stink of diesel, but something even more interesting happened: Life grew back. ( Plants started growing there!

 To these mushrooms diesel fuel is not toxic but a form of food. They feed on it, and converted the toxins to substances that other life forms can not only tolerate but feed off of, and grow.

 Let's heed Paul Stamets' wisdom and follow his work: mushrooms can heal the world!

 --Bibi Farber


 This video was produced by Paul Stamets
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 08, 2014, 11:30:21 pm

Article on the above video: ‘Fracking 101′ Narrated by Edward James Olmos
Title: Why I Think This World Should End
Post by: AGelbert on December 10, 2014, 06:25:00 pm
Why I Think This World Should End


Watch this one minute clip to learn why Natural Capitalism is the only REAL Capitalism. Modern so-called "Capitalism" (i.e. Crapitalism!) actually SHRINKS,  DEGRADES and DESTROYS  Capital!

Golden Rule Government: A Lawful System Based on Caring instead of Conquest (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2014, 08:04:29 pm
King Coal keeps Killing the Land and the Life on it to get the coal.

Mining Coal Faster Than Men Can Mine It...   
Come have a beer with a few coal miners in West Virginia, where they are leveling mountaintops every single day, 24 hours a day.

 "If we let them, they'll level this whole place. You might feel bad about it because you're worried about the environment but you're still going to cut the top off of this mountain because hey, I got to eat." says one of the men.

 When they old timers mined coal, it was hard work. But now we need to mine coal faster than men can mine it.

 Taking tops off of the mountains of West Virginia destroys the earth, depositing toxins and threatening the health of all living things.  (

 At 18:57, see the tray full of about 70 medication that one area man has to take daily to survive the toxic onslaught.

 How does he stand it? He just prays.

 --Bibi Farber

 This video was produced by VICE
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2014, 11:57:42 pm
The commonly repeated history of how water fluoridation came to be states that the practice was spurred on by research from the 1930s, which found that people who drank water containing higher levels of naturally-occurring fluoride tended to have less severe tooth decay.

On the surface, it would appear as though it was a successful government intervention on your behalf. More than 60 years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared community water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

However, the real story reveals it was little more than a well-orchestrated PR stunt – a glowing example of the art of disseminating “adjustable truths” to sell an inconveniently toxic reality to an unsuspecting public.

In his book, Bryson describes the deeply intertwined interests that existed in the 1940s and 50s between the aluminum industry, the US nuclear weapons program, and the dental industry, which resulted in fluoride being declared not only safe, but beneficial to human health (

The Fluoride Deception: An Interview with Christopher Bryson

December 13, 2014 | 196,924 views

Excellent article accompanying video:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 17, 2014, 01:03:22 am
Pharmaceutical grade fluoride you DO NOT DRINK that is applied directly to teeth while brushing with toothpaste prevents tooth decay.

Fluoridation in the water is a waste product
from the phosphate fertilizer industry formerly considered toxic waste. It does NOTHING to prevent tooth decay and has been scientifically proven to have neurotoxic effects on animals and humans. If you have fluoridated water, DO NOT DRINK IT. Children are the most adversely affected from drinking fluoridated water.

Here's the whole story
of typical profit over people and planet Military Industrial Complex backed propaganda. The Mellon institute, the same one that claimed for several decades, with doctored studies, that asbestos was safe, championed fluoridation of the water.

The CHIEF champion of fluoridation, Harold Hodges  >:(, was the very same chief scientist of the Manhattan Project in charge of determining the toxicity of radionuclides. Under his direction people in Rochester and Oak Ridge were injected with Plutonium in 1945-46.

Guess who was contracted to get the public to accept, clamor for, demand AND PAY the bill (to the delight of the phosphate, aluminum AND nuclear weapons manufacturing corporations) for community fluoridation of a hitherto known pollutant requiring corporations to pay for its disposal and fight lawsuits brought by disabled employees?

Edward Bernays!   :P

"I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." 
 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 17, 2014, 11:49:56 pm

Families Forced to Flee Their Homes From Out-of-Control Leak at Fracking Well

Anastasia Pantsios | December 17, 2014 4:46 pm

More than two dozen families have been forced to flee their homes in Monroe County in eastern Ohio as natural gas poured from a leak at an unused fracking well, the C0lumbus Dispatch revealed.

Fracking sites have become rampant in eastern Ohio, as have fracking accidents. Photo credit: Ohio Community Rights Network

According to Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) spokeswoman Bethany McCorkle, crews lost control of the well Saturday and have not yet been able to stop the leak. Families were evacuated from homes within a 1.5-mile radius of the well near the Ohio River. “There’s still a steady stream of natural gas coming from the wellhead,” said McCorkle.

Texas-based Triad Hunter, which owns the drilling site, released a statement saying it had “experienced a loss of control of a well, the Stalder 3UH, located in Monroe County, Ohio. The previously drilled and completed Stalder 3UH well had been temporarily plugged and abandoned in preparation for the drilling of three additional Utica horizontal wells on the Stalder pad. However, despite numerous precautionary measures taken in connection with the temporary plugging and abandonment operation, the well began to flow uncontrollably while recommencing production operations. Triad Hunter personnel were removing the well’s night cap flange when a pressure disruption occurred. They attempted to bolt back down this equipment but were not able to safely do so prior to natural gas flowback.”

“Triad Hunter has contacted all necessary regulatory authorities and evacuated field personnel and the residents in the immediate area,” it continued. “Currently, all field personnel are accounted for, and no injuries have been reported. Only critical personnel remain at a command center near the well site to mitigate the incident. Wild Well Control of Houston, Texas has been mobilized and is currently on site preparing for well control operations. Additional details will be released as they become available.”

According to McCorkle, the well had been fracked and plugged a year ago.

“This whole situation is uncommon in general,” she said. “A full investigation will give us more information as to what happened, what led up to the incident and why there was so much pressure.”

That probably won’t be much comfort to the families and others living in the area of Ohio’s growing number of fracking operations.

“There have been other explosions and fires at fracking wells and drilling sites in Ohio,” the Dispatch concluded blandly without providing further details.

Indeed there have—many of them reported in the Dispatch. In October, 400 homes were evacuated in Jefferson County, also on the Ohio River to the north of Monroe County, when a fracking operation there sprung a leak. McCorkle said the ODNR was investigating.

 In June, a fracking site in Clarington, also in Monroe County, caught fire, causing multiple explosions. That accident spilled large amounts of toxic chemicals into a nearby stream, killing fish and wildlife; the well operator company waited several days to disclose what chemicals had been released. The ODNR was investigating.

That was days after another out-of-control gas leak in Bethel Township in Monroe County.

“The out of control natural gas leak at a fracking site in Monroe County demonstrates, once again, the lack of foresight on the part of Ohio Governor John Kasich, the Ohio legislature and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources on the issue of fracking,” said Alison Auciello, Ohio organizer for Food & Water Watch.

“The ODNR must have a short memory because they’re saying these types of accidents are ‘uncommon in general.’ ( Just this past summer residents in Monroe County were evacuated while the Eisenbarth well pad exploded,” said Auciello. “As the Monroe County leak continues to force evacuations, Governor Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in the state of New York today ( , citing health concerns from the New York Department of Health.

How many accidents will it take for Governor Kasich ( take a nod from Governor Cuomo, pay attention to the science, listen to his constituents and realize that there is no such thing a safe fracking?”   (

But, but Roamer and Mking say fracking is safe, justified, necessary and prudent!
The METER reading of persons claiming that FRACKING is safe, justified, necessary and prudent.

"I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." 
 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 18, 2014, 03:39:03 pm
President Obama Forever Protects Bristol Bay From Oil/Gas Drilling   ( News

President Obama has used his executive authority to make Alaska's pristine Bristol Bay off limits to oil and gas leasing, safeguarding habitat for the largest wild sockeye salmon runs in the world.

Other species that will also benefit from leaving this pristine bay in tact include sea otters, seals, walruses, Beluga and Killer whales, and the endangered North Pacific Right Whale. 


It's a wish come true for local citizens, fisherman and Native tribes who have been trying to protect it - and the surrounding Bering Sea - for decades as The Fish Basket Coalition. "The region's incredible fishing, wildlife and cultural values are permanently protected in one of America's iconic marine habitats," says Marilyn Heiman, director of the Pew Charitable Trust's US Arctic Project, and a member of the Coalition.


40% of America's wild-caught seafood comes from Bristol Bay, crucial for the $2 billion a year fishing industry. The spectacular, remote area is also an economic engine for tourism.

 Pointing out the Bay's importance as an economic engine and  sustaining Alaska Native communities for centuries, President Obama also says, "With migratory birds, sea otters, whales, and seals, Bristol Bay is truly a place unlike any other. Simply put, these waters are too special and too valuable to auction off to the highest bidder.  They belong to all of us - and to future generations."

 Attempts have been made in the past to open it to oil leases, including Former President GW Bush, who set in motion a lease sale that would have opened about a fifth of the area.

President Obama is exercising his authority under section 12 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which gives him the  authority to withdraw offshore areas from potential oil and gas leasing.
President Eisenhower first used this authority in 1960, withdrawing an area that's now part of Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Since then, Presidents on both sides of the aisle have protected areas from oil and gas leasing.

Under the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act of 1953, the Department of the Interior develops an energy development leasing program every five years for federal offshore waters.

The current program spans 2012-2017, and opens 15 areas to potential leases - over 75% of the estimated undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in US federal offshore waters.   (

 What impact will this have on Pebble Mine? This largest open-pit mine in North America - up to 2 miles long, 1.5 miles wide, and 1700 feet deep - would extract copper, gold and molybdenum in the heart of Bristol Bay. It would be sited at the headwaters of two rivers that feed right into the bay.

Agelbert NOTE: Before we break out the champagne, please understand that fossil fuelers will now use their typical fascist tactics to attempt to reverse this "forever" protection in order to avoid the CRATERING of world class polluter stocks like SLB an HAL, among many other profit over planet piranha stocks that will get whacked if this ruling holds. The polluters  think they can reverse the ruling.

Proof of that is that today's action is mild.
Halliburton Company  HAL  38.63  -0.81 (-2.05%)  33.25B 
Schlumberger Limited.  SLB  82.46  -0.42 (-0.51%)  105.35B

You can observe further proof by the "huh hum" reaction of frackers like MKing to this news.  (

But DO NOT  think the fossil fuelers aren't taking this "threat" to their dirty energy profits seriously. They WORSHIP at the altar of MONEY. ( (

One Hundred and thirty five BILLION dollars of Biosphere murderer "equity" will be defended ( every bit of low down, 'buy em' or bop em' mafia "free market" tactics fossil fuelers are infamous for. 

Let's hope they do not succeed in getting a "Halliburton LOOPHOLE" * (see short fracking videos below to learn how the LAW now defends poison for profit  >:()" for these "forever" protected lands.  (

But bastards that work best in the dark do not function well in the light of exposure. Do your part. Let everyone know what these fine fellows DO because they CAN. They won't be able to if we are all watching their every move for the sake of future generations.    (

Please pass this on. Your children will thank you. (

Watch this one minute clip to learn why Natural Capitalism is the only REAL Capitalism. Modern so-called "Capitalism" (i.e. Crapitalism!) actually SHRINKS,  DEGRADES and DESTROYS  Capital!

All about Fracking LEGAL chemical POISONS (3 minutes 31 seconds):

* Fossil Fuel Fascism in Action(3 minute lesson on our Orwellian world):

Fossil Fuel Fascist Jolly Roger "business" model (8 minutes):

Dr. Richard A. Houghton, acting president of the WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER says TINA to a Low Carbon Economy (")

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 20, 2014, 09:13:09 pm
Southeast Michigan's Reclaimed Wood Marketplace (

The dead urban trees in Southeast Michigan could produce almost 73 million board feet of lumber annually. That's according to's website, the network of local sawmills who specialize in reclaiming urban timber in the area. is Southeast Michigan's "Reclaimed Wood Marketplace"

Recycling urban timber means making boards out of yard trees, storm damaged trees, and trees from municipalities that might end up chipped up and loaded into containers headed to landfills. "200 years ago when you built a house, when you built a barn, you looked around the property where you were building. It was local timber, that's what you built with." says John Haling of Sawmill John Custom Sawing.

How great to be able to make something lasting out of a tree in your yard that has to come down. Why ship in the wood from someplace else? A great example of common sense coming back. Remember, not so long ago, all wood was "reclaimed locally". --Bibi Farber

for more info see - See more at:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 23, 2014, 09:45:44 pm
People of Good Will dressed as Santa and Elves ARRESTED for protesting Fracking. >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2015, 05:56:52 pm
VERY brief list (it's now at 8,000 and COUNTING!)
of the Harmed by FRACKING:
   :(  :P >:(
-Updated as of December 19th, 2014- *PDF version here List of the Harmed (

The following is an ever-growing list of the individuals and families that have been harmed by fracking (or fracked gas and oil production) in the US.

Should you encounter any issues (misinformation, broken links, etc.) or if you are/know someone who should be added to this list, please contact us at

1. Pam Judy and family
 Location: Carmichaels, PA
 Gas Facility: Compressor station 780 feet away
 Exposure: Air
 Symptoms: Headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, nosebleeds, blood test show exposure to benzene and other chemicals

2. Darrell Smitsky
 Location: Hickory, PA
 Gas Facility: Range Resources Well, less than 1,000 ft
 Exposure: Water – toluene, acrylonitrile, strontium, barium, manganese
 Symptoms: Rashes on legs from showering.
 Symptoms (animal): Five healthy goats dead; fish in pond showing abnormal scales; another neighbor comments anonymously

3. Jerry and Denise Gee and family
 Location: Tioga County, Charleston Township, PA
 Gas Facility: Shell Appalachia natural gas well
 Exposure: Water – methane
 Symptoms: Relocated, pond contaminated

4. Stacey Haney
 Location: Washington County, PA
 Gas Facility: Range Resources gas well and 7 acre waste impoundment
 Exposure: Water – glycol and arsenic
 Symptoms: Son – stomach, (liver and kidney) pain, nausea, fatigue and mouth ulcers; daughter – similar symptoms
 Symptoms (animal): Dogs – death; goat – death; horse – sick

5. Phyllis Carr and family
 Location: Fayette County, PA
 Gas Facility: Three natural gas compressors operated by Williams and a dehydrator
 Exposure: Air pollution
 Symptoms: Headaches, sore throats, sinus congestion, rashes, blisters, lesions, respiratory distress, and hearing difficulties; blood contains phenol and benzene

6. Julie Kuhne
 Location: Clearville, PA
 Gas facility: Well blowout
 Exposure: Water -toluene.”…My water test came back contaminated with toluene. So did my neighbors.“
Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated

7. Joe A. & Sandra K. McDaniel
 Location: Clearville, PA
 Gas Facility: Steckman Ridge gas storage, wells 1000 ft from pond
 Exposure: Water- MBAS in spring fed fish pond
 Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated

8. Terry Greenwood
 Location: Washington County. PA
 Gas Facility: Dominion Resources Appalachian and Consol gas wells and impoundment
 Exposure: Water (waste pit overflowed into pond)
 Symptoms (animal): Cows – ten dead

9. Carol and Don Johnson
 Location: Tioga County, PA
 Gas Facility: East Resources waste impoundment
 Exposure: Water (waste pit overflowed into field) – chloride, iron, sulfate, barium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, strontium and calcium.
 Symptoms (animal): Stillborn calves, quarantined cows

10. Mary McConnell
 Location: Bedford County,PA
 Gas Facility: Columbia Gas storage field
 Exposure: Air – methane
 Symptoms: Headaches, breathing difficulties, sore muscles and other health issues

11. Wayne and Angel Smith
 Location: Bedford County, PA
 Gas Facility: Spectra Energy Steckman Ridge storage field, pipelines, compressor stations
 Exposure: Air, water – arsenic
 Symptoms: Various health ailments
 Symptoms (animal): Death – 5 cows, 3 dogs, 12 chickens and 4 cats

12. Steve and Jacki Schilke
 Location: Williston Basin, ND
 Gas Facility: Oasis gas wells
 Exposure: Water- magnesium, manganese, boron and strontium and sulfates; air – benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and zylene
 Symptoms: Lightheadedness, dizzy and trouble breathing, at times can’t walk without cane
 Symptoms (animal): Dogs and cows sick, death

13. Mark and Sandy Mangan
 Location: Medina County, Ohio
 Gas Facility: Gas well
 Exposure: Air; water – salts, methane and cement
 Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated

14. William and Stephanie Boggs (Stephanie deceased, age 47)
 Location: Medina County, Ohio
 Gas Facility: Landmark 4 LLC gas well
 Exposure: Water, land, air
 Symptoms: Unknown,replacement water or relocated

15. Susan Wallace Babbs
 Location: Parachute, CO
 Gas Facility: Gas wells
 Exposure: Air- benzene, tetrachloroetheneand 1,4-dichlorobenzene
 Symptoms: Vomiting, diarrhea, lesions, pain, elevated heart rate
*Wallace Babbs’ symptoms mirror those reported by neighbors living near her ranch in Parachute, CO, and by dozens of residents of communities across the country that have seen the most extensive natural gas drilling.

16. Beth and Bill Strudley and sons
 Location: Garfield County, CO
 Gas Facility: Antero Resources gas well
 Exposure: Water; air
 Symptoms: Rashes, nosebleeds, blackouts, (relocated)
 (drilling by the Anschutz Exploration Corp. in New York contaminated the drinking water of  nine families.)

17. Floyd and Lisa Green
 Location: Garfield County, CO
Exposure: Air
 Gas Facility: Gas wells, condensate tanks
 Symptoms: Nosebleeds, headaches, nausea, muscle spasms, (relocated)
 Symptoms (animal): Chicken death, goat gave birth to a head

18. Beth Voyles
 Location: Washington County, PA
 Gas Facility: Range Resources frack waste impoundment and gas wells
Exposure: Air, water
 Symptoms: Rashes, blisters, inability to concentrate, light-headedness,nose bleeds, lethargy; benzene, toluene and arsenic in blood and urine
 Symptoms (animal): Farm animals and dogs suddenly died, other dogs aborted pregnancies, stillborn offspring

19. Jeremiah Magers
 Location: Cameron, WV
 Gas Facility: Chesapeake well fracked, 1200 feet from water tank.
 Exposure:  Water-methane
 Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated

20. Dennis and Tamera Hagy and sons
 Location: Jackson County, WV
 Gas Facility: Equitable gas wells 1,080 feet away
Exposure: Water – arsenic, lead, barium and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, radon levels were 1,233 pCi/l with the maximum contaminant level set at 300.
 Symptoms: Neurological symptoms, headaches, rashes, and vomiting, eyes burning, oddly tired; one son spitting up blood

21. Danny and Sharon Kinney
 Location: Salem, WV
 Gas Facility: Antero Resources gas well
 Exposure: Water – arsenic at .060
 Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated; cracking house foundation

22. Bonnie Hall
 Location: Wetzel County, WV
 Gas Facility: Chesapeake gas wells
 Exposure: Water – acrylonitrile, benzene, and styrene
 Symptoms (animal): Horses refused to drink the water
“Neighbors had suffered declining health…”

23. James and Ruth Parsons
 Location: Ripley, WV
 Gas Facility: Fracked well within 600 feet of well casing
 Exposure: Water-high levels of pollutants and contaminates
 Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated

24. Leann Kiner
 Location: Harrison County, WV
 Gas Facility: Antero gas well
 Exposure: Water – arsenic
 Symptoms: Unknown, replacement water or relocated

25. Lorrie Squibb
 Location: Flower Mound, TX
 Gas Facility: Intensive gas production
 Exposure: Air
 Symptoms: Multiple myeloma, a blood cancer

26. John Barnes’ niece
 Location: Masontown, PA
 Gas Facility:  Gas well 200 ft away
 Exposure: Water – barium
 Symptoms: Comatose state for three weeks, liver failed and lungs filled with fluid

27. Janet and Fred McIntyre and family
 Location: Butler County, PA
 Gas Facility: Rex gas wells
 Exposure: Air; water – high levels of iron, manganese and toluene, high levels of chloromethane and t-butyl alcohol
 Symptoms: Aches, nausea and bouts of vomiting, fingernails curling under, hair loss, headache, eye irritation
 Symptoms (animal): Gagging and throwing up blood, diarrhea, death
She lives in one of 10 households near Connoquenessing, where residents believe nearby drilling has affected their water

28. Megan Collins
 Location: Dish, TX
 Gas Facility: Compressor station
 Exposure: Air
 Symptoms: Sinus issues, difficulty with balance and standing, headaches, fainting, dystonia and ataxia, nausea

29. Deborah Rogers
 Location: Forth Worth, TX
 Gas Facility: Chesapeake drilling operations
 Exposure: Water, air- benzene, dichlorodifluoromethane, chloroform, xylenes,
 toluene, disulfides
 Symptoms: Nausea from the strong odors ,nose bleeds ,severe headaches.
 Symptoms (animal): Asphyxiated goats and chickens

30. Sandra DenBraber
 Location: Arlington, TX
 Gas Facility: Carrizo natural gas operations
 Exposure: Air – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
 Symptoms: Blood has Ethylbenzene, m,p-Xylene, Hexane,  2-Methylpentane, 3-Methylpentane; migraines

31. Kim McEvoy
 Location: Butler County, PA
 Gas Facility: Gas well 1,000 feet from house
 Exposure:  Water – arsenic and methylene chloride
 Symptoms: Sickness

32. Carl Stiles (deceased at age 46)
 Location: Bradford County, PA
 Gas Facility: Chesapeake gas wells
 Exposure: Water – strontium, uranium and radium
 Symptoms: Barium, arsenic, and VOCs (volatile organic chemicals) in blood, intestinal cancer, headaches, memory loss, and tremors
“There are so many people in Sugar Run who have water buffaloes…”

33. April Beach and sons
 Location: Erie, CO
 Gas Facility: Five drilling pads within a mile
 Exposure: Air; dust
 Symptoms: Lesion in  spinal cord,  asthma, migraines,  severe  auto immune issues,GI issues and extreme pain

34. June and David Chappel (David deceased)
 Location: Washington County, PA
 Gas Facility: Range Resources waste pit the size of a football field, seven gas wells
 Exposure: Air, dust
 Symptoms: Sickness
 Symptoms (animal): Cat – death

35. Sherry Vargson and husband
 Location: Granville, PA
 Gas Facility: Drill pad only 500 ft. from her farmhouse
 Exposure: Water-methane, radium, manganese and strontium
 Symptoms:  Headaches, nausea, light-headedness,32068,902909981001_2065158,00.html

PLEASE PASS THIS ON! People need to know.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2015, 07:30:36 pm
Surly: I ran into this and could just NOT stay away. I concentrated on North Dakota in the hopes of communicating to a certain Fracker Doomer (AND his Gaia worshiping pal who is SUPPOSED to be counseling the fracker to stop this **** or lose a friend! ) the REAL WORLD damage he is doing to ALL of nature, including himself.  (

There is no way in hell that the lying sacks of fossil fuel **** that curse the Doomstead Diner (with their endless BULL**** about how "safe" Fracking is when done responsibly, how they are doing it to "help prevent a collapse of civilization",  and how "hysterical" my claims are of the massive damage done to our biosphere by Fracking) can DANCE AROUND THIS (of course they will try  ;) ).

A SUMMARY of what FRACKING has done, AND CONTINUES TO DO, to North Dakota and the life forms that happen to be in the way of Fracking "profits".

12. Steve and Jacki Schilke
Location: Williston Basin, ND
Gas Facility: Oasis gas wells
Exposure: Water- magnesium, manganese, boron and strontium and sulfates; air - benzene,
methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and zylene
Symptoms: Lightheadedness, dizzy and trouble breathing, at times can’t walk
without cane
Symptoms (animal): Dogs and cows sick, death

301. Dustin Bergsing (deceased Jan. 7, 2012)
Location: Dunn County, ND
Gas Facility: Marathon well
Exposure: Air – hydrocarbons
Symptoms: Death from hydrocarbon poisoning

315. Brenda Jorgenson
Location: ND
Gas Facility: Gas wells
Exposure: Air - fumes from fracking chemicals and waste pit
Symptoms: Eyes and throat burn, headaches

326. Darwin Peterson
Location: ND
Gas Facility: Petro Harvester
Exposure: Spill of 2 million gallons of brine
Symptoms: Farm land ruined

335. Daryl Peterson
Location: ND
Gas Facility: Gas production
Exposure: Drilling waste releases
Symptoms: Farm land ruined

336. Linda Monson
Location: Alexander, ND
Gas Facility: Zenergy Inc. wastewater pipeline
Exposure: Land; water - metals and carcinogenic hydrocarbons in the soil, the million
gallon spill wiped
out the creek's fish, turtles, and other life
Symptoms (animal): Wiped out the creek's fish, turtles and other life

351. Jeffery Todd Kinkaid (deceased 2012)
Location: Mountrail County, ND
Gas Facility: Bakken oil rig
Exposure: Tank explosion
Symptoms: Death, burns to 90% of body

580. Victor Boyd
Location: Watford City, ND
Gas Facility: Precision Drilling rig
Exposure: Air - sprayed by a hose carrying drilling fluid and hydrocarbons
Symptoms: Profound burns

779. Mike Krajewski (deceased 2013)
Location: McKenzie County, ND
Gas Facility: Halliburton well site
Exposure: N/A
Symptoms: Death

897. Susan Connell
Location: ND
Gas Facility: Brine tankers
Exposure: H2S
Symptoms: Stabbing pains in her stomach, the prelude to a week-long bout of vomiting

1147. Loren Jepson
Location: Killdeer, ND
Gas Facility: Hess Corp. well pad
Exposure: Water
Symptoms: Clay mud and silt running off the drill pad into his stock dam

1197-1198. Bruce Ford and Rod Law
Location: McKenzie County, ND
Gas Facility: Statoil well
Exposure: Vapors or fumes caught fire
Symptoms: Seriously burned

1354. Coby A Thibodeaux (deceased 2013)
Location: Burke County, ND
Gas Facility: Oasis Petroleum drill site
Exposure: Hit by equipment
Symptoms: Traumatic injury

1761. Steve Jensen
Location: Bismarck, ND
Gas Facility: Tesoro pipeline
Exposure: Land; air
Symptoms: Oil was "spewing and bubbling 6 inches high, spill covered 7.3 acres. Land is no
longer usable for planting."We expect not to be able to farm that ground for several years"

1777. Anonymous
Location: Williston, ND
Gas Facility: Oasis Petroleum brine pipeline
Exposure: Land – brine spill
Symptoms: Saltwater affected an area of farm field – soil will be remediated

2479. Pat Hedstrup
Location: Dickinson, ND
Gas Facility: Oil and gas production
Exposure: Air
Symptoms: “Sometimes the hay has so much dirt the cattle won’t even lay on it.” Open
range cattle in North Dakota have begun to die from dust pneumonia; cattle reject the dustladen

2480. Shelly Ventsch
Location: New Town, ND
Gas Facility: Oil and gas production
Exposure: Land
Symptoms: Property trashed

2481. Mike Artz
Location: Bottineau County, ND
Gas Facility: Fractured pipeline
Exposure: Land
Symptoms: Pipeline released a substantial amount of saltwater; samples of barley showed
severely stunted growth.

2482. Anonymous
Location: Bottineau County, ND
Gas Facility: Gas and oil production
Exposure: Land - 150 acres contaminated with salts
Symptoms: Owner requested that the site be cleaned up but nothing was done. Several
attempts at planting crops on the contaminated land failed.

REMEMBER FOLKS, all the above are just "isolated incidents" and the "science isn't in" that fracking is bad for you and the biosphere as told us by Frackers and other Fossil Fuel supporting perfidious energy "experts" of various levels of bufoonery and erudite baloney spouting.

Here's the latest three "isolated incidents" that people like MKing and Roamer justify as being "necessary" for them to "put food on the table".  SO IT GOES...

6754. Unnamed creek (Sept. 31st, 2014)
Location: Bowman County, ND
Gas Facility: Denbury Onshore pipeline
Exposure: Water – 2,000 barrel leak of fluids used for enhanced oil recovery.
Symptoms: The water had flowed into a nearby creek and no water could be recovered.
Monitoring will continue.

6753. Lake Sakakawea tributary
Location: McKenzie County, ND
Gas Facility: Oasis Petroleum pipeline
Exposure: Land; water
Symptoms: 42,000 gallon spill of wastewater, damaged vegetation, 6-inches of topsoil

7512. Blaine Otto (deceased 2013)
Location: Keene, ND
Gas Facility: Newfield Exploration well
Exposure: Air
Symptoms: Death

List of the Harmed (

Agelbert Suggestion to people who can still add and subtract: Do your part. Tell the truth about Fracking. If you have a friend who justifies fracking, tell him he stops fracking or he loses a friend, PERIOD! (

A study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance showed that the cost of renewable energy is now $80/MWh versus the cost of new build coal fired generation of $143/Mwh and new build gas fired generation of $116/MWh.

Myth Busters: the top 4 myths about renewable energy debunked! (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2015, 09:02:08 pm

The Dog and Rabbit KNEW before the owner did that the water was contaminated and refused to drink it. The human(s) are sick and ALL the animals and flora are getting sicker, thanks to the Fracking OBSCENITY.  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 03, 2015, 09:27:58 pm
More sick people from Fracking.  :P At 4:40 in this video you will see that the ANGER is building against the LIARS that defend Fracking and pretend there is nothing wrong with it. 

PAYBACK is coming SOON to these Perfidious, Prevaricating, Profit over People and Planet Predators.  8) If you are a Fracker or otherwise defend this obscenity, I advise you to NOT relax. You belong in jail and many people are working to see that you get EXACTLY what you deserve. ;D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 06, 2015, 02:02:55 am
The Bhopal Of Then And The Bhopal Of Now (thanks to Union Carbide)

Agelbert NOTE: This case is a perfect example of how predatory capitalist corporations keep their "losses" at a minimum when they cause massive injury and death. The conscience free ONE, TWO, THREE PUNCH "save the profits" script was written by Warren Anderson of Union Carbide.

ONE: Buy an influential local official to keep a lid on any deaths and downplay the event in the press.

TWO: Buy the Courts to insure the victims get paid PEANUTS (and only after you drag out the litigation as long as possible so more litigants are DEAD - less people to pay off).

THREE: Pretend the whole thing was a "lamentable accident" and vociferously deny that you were given multiple warnings predicting that the UNSAFE corner cutting CRAP you were doing would result in people getting killed one day (see video below for Union Carbide Criminal Negligence. For the other bastards, see double hulls delayed 20 YEARS on behalf of Exxon Mobile by the Reagan Administration, drill baby drill government blank check for British Petroleum and the Halliburton loophole license to KILL for Frackers). This step may also require some puff piece "documentaries" that detail all the "lessons learned" by all these " responsible" corporate officials involved in the "tragedy". ( (

I am QUITE CERTAIN that this demonic script was blissfully followed in the "handling" of the Exxon Valdez spill, the British Petroleum Gulf of Mexico out of control oil well, and the response by "authorities" in the USA RIGHT NOW when people, animals, plants and land are irreparably harmed by Fracking.(

The above massacre began December 3, 1984 -
Predatory Capitalism (


This brave documentary is made by a young Bhopali man who grew up listening to his elders' experiences from the night that unleashed one of the most horrendous incidents to have ever taken place -- the Bhopal Gas Tragedy on the night of December 2 -3 1984.

He decided to research, examine and determine exactly what the survivors had experienced in the wake of the tragedy.

From the documentary's description: "And that is when he starts unveiling the true nature of this set of events -- that within the very fabric of the world's worst industrial disaster, something purely sinister yet entirely man-made had taken shape to obscure the ones who died, and how it has only grown in prominence since then to haunt the ones who survived."

A passionate and insightful set of interviews that tell the story of the help that never arrived, the truth that never surfaced and the Bhopal that might forever live in 1984.

--Bibi Farber

This video was produced by Syed Samar Medhi

Agelbert NOTE: OUR Bhopal is Fracking. It's not as dramatic but it's MORE widespread and will ultimately kill a LOT more people AND other life forms! It's the PREDATORY CAPITALISM, STUPID! If you don't think so, you are in for a very rude awakening. 


"I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness." 
 Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 09, 2015, 07:27:35 pm
Moose67 gives good advice:
Don't buy Smithfield products. The company was bought out by a Chinese corporation in July, 2014.  We can't trust their pet food, so why should we trust the quality of their people food?  It looks so nice and neat from above, but the poor animals confined their whole lives plus the horrible pollution - shut 'em down economically.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 15, 2015, 09:15:08 pm

If this Nicaragua Grand Canal environmental TRAVESTY by the Chinese is built, countless rain forest biomes and Lake Nicaragua, the largest fresh water lake in Central America, are:


Nicaragua defies canal protests

Scientists call for independent environmental assessment.   (

Lucas Laursen
27 December 2014


Normally, before a major infrastructure project begins in Nicaragua, an independent commission would generate an environmental impact report and the environment ministry would take 6–8 months to review it and make recommendations, says engineer Víctor Campos, director of the Alexander von Humboldt Centre, an environmental non-profit organization in Managua. But those rules do not apply to the canal: a law passed in 2013 exempts the project from standard environmental review.


In 2007, Ortega promised citizens that he would not risk the waters of Lake Nicaragua for all the gold in the world.   ( This October, he said that he had come around to the idea of the canal  ( because it would be the country’s fastest route to economic development. The nation’s public sector stands to benefit from the deal: HKND  ( will pay the government $10 million annually for the first 10 years of the canal's operation, and hand ownership of the canal to the government gradually at a rate of roughly 10% per decade to a maximum of 99%.


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 16, 2015, 01:59:10 am
Chaplin in the lion cage   

Consider this a pictorial metaphor, an allegory, a morality tale or whatever.

There are two possible interpretations that I came up with; one has to do with
(1)Fossil Fuel Pollution and the other with (2) The Scientific Method.

Chaplin does not get eaten, hence this is a cautionary tale. The common ground in both scenarios is that, in matters of life and death, mistaken assumptions will have negative consequences. In the REAL WORLD, those consequences cannot be avoided.

There are six characters in this video:
   Character    roll played in (1)   roll played in (2)
   Mule (?)     Ethics      Unvarnished Truth
   Chaplin   The Fossil Fuel Industry   Theory of Evolution
   Tiger   Renewable Energy    Probability and Statistics
   Young Lady   We-the-people   We-the-people
   Small dog    Global Warming Evidence   Natural Selection
   Caged Lion   Biosphere      Intelligent Design Evidence

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2015, 08:55:00 pm
Workers receive compensation fourteen years on

After fourteen years 14,000 sick banana workers from Costa Rica have finally received compensation for physical and psychological damage that they suffered after being exposed to the banned crop protection agent Nemagon during the years 1967 to 1979, reports the German website

It has been proven that Nemagon can cause health issues such as infertility, cancer, miscarriages and genetic malformations.  :(    In 1979 Costa Rica banned the import of Nemagon.

Publication date: 12/18/2014

Chemicals Commonly Used and Their Effects  >:(

Fruit companies use chemicals at almost every stage of growing. Fertilizers are used to keep the soil fertile, herbicides to keep the growing area vegetation free, nematicides to protect roots from damage, fungicides to prevent damaging fungi. Chemicals are even used during the packing process. (

In most plantations, workers are not provided with or cautioned to wear protective safety gear.     ( Workers are potentially exposed to a virtual Molotov cocktail of chemicals on a daily basis. This exposure without protection is a large contributor to the high rates of negative health effects.

One of the most infamous, Dibromo-chloro-propane (DBCP) is also known as Nemagon.
In the 1950's companies that manufactured the chemical and the federal government were aware of this nematicides chromosome disrupting properties but still approved it for use. In 1977, after a group of factory workers in California were discovered to be sterile after working with DBCP, it was outlawed in the U.S. Dole, however, continued to use the chemical until December of 1978.

The United Nations Environmental Programme presented a case study on Nemagon lawsuits. "I was 21 years old, what did I know? Nobody told us anything. For two years, I applied Nemagon without mask, gloves, or protecting clothing. You pump it directly into the ground. Sometimes, the pressure made the liquid splash right in your face. You could feel the hideous smell across 100 meters" stated a banana plantation worker interviewed for the study. Nemagon has been connected to headaches, male sterility, nausea, cancer, and damage to the stomach, lungs, kidneys, brain, spleen, eyes, blood, and liver.

Other toxins often used in fruit plantations are Timex, Paraquat, and Parathion. One of the primary ingredients in Timex, is Aldicarb. The EPA classifies Aldicarb as one of the most acutely toxic pesticides registered. ( it has been tied to immune system abnormality, stillbirths and tumors.

Paraquat  (, a herbicide, can cause death with one teaspoonful if ingested.  It can also cause permanent lung damage, skin blistering and ulcers, necrosis, temporary loss of nails, dermal burns, nose bleeds, loss of eyesight, liver/kidney/heart failure, and lung scarring.

The neurotoxin Parathion is used as an insecticide that can cause sweating, dizziness, convulsion, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, central nervous system depression, paralysis, coma, and death.  ( ( (

From Costa Rica to Nicaragua, to Guatemala, the Honduras, Africa and beyond farm workers have been suffering from the effects of exposure to these chemicals. Employees and their families are effected either by direct contact or a result of environmental contamination of the soil and groundwater. The men and women on these plantations suffer from sterility, miscarriages, depression, cancer, skin infections- basically the host of symptoms associated with the chemicals they work with and are sprayed with every day. (  (


The pesticide atrocity of Nicaragua: Nemagon survivors seek justice after being poisoned
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 23, 2015, 11:43:07 pm
Plastic Pollution  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 28, 2015, 03:42:51 pm
Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 02:13 PM EST
Pipeline Explodes in West Virginia (  ( (

by Fath Gardner

Another day, another gas pipeline bursts—this time in West Virginia, about an hour away from Pittburgh and near the Ohio River.

A number of residents have said they saw what appeared to be a large fireball burning in the sky.

Brooke County Sheriff Chuck Jackson said the explosion is near the former riding stables on Archer Hill Road in Colliers, WV. Jackson said no injuries have been reported and no structural damage has occurred, but several area roads have been closed because of burning gas.

It appears only one home was evacuated and the fire eventually burnt off. At least one home and one power line has been damaged. There were no injuries. The cause of the explosion is still unknown.

Authorities shut off power in the area of Arch Hill Road in Colliers, WV, with some residents receiving their power through a substation.

Follansbee Fire Chief Larry Rea said the weather helped the fire from becoming more of a problem.

Enterprise Products, L.P., said they are working with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to determine the cause of the explosion. The company said in a statement that they did notice a pressure drop earlier in the day prior to the explosion.

The gas line will not be in operation again until PHMSA gives their approval.

This is the fourth major pipeline incident that's occurred this month. In Montana, a 50,000 gallon spill resulted in cancer-causing chemicals leaking into residents' drinking water.

But move along, folks. Nothing to see here.   ( ( ( (

Agelbert NOTE: Three cheers for NATURAL SELECTION in West Virginia!  ( Coming soon to Homo SAP apex (see epitome of stupidity  ( predators everywhere.  8)
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 28, 2015, 04:15:43 pm
Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 02:17 PM EST.

What is causing the mass deaths of seabirds on the West Coast?

Jen Hayden

What's killing off the seabirds at an alarming rate?

Birdwatchers and researchers in the Western U.S. are sounding an alarm about the mysterious  ( deaths of seabirds:

"This is just massive, massive, unprecedented," said Julia Parrish, a University of Washington seabird ecologist who oversees the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST), a program that has tracked West Coast seabird deaths for almost 20 years. "We may be talking about 50,000 to 100,000 deaths.   ( So far."

What's causing the deaths? ( (

The gruesome auklet deaths come just as scientists around the globe are seeing a significant uptick in mass-mortality events in the marine world, from sea urchins to fish and birds. Although there doesn't appear to be a link to the virus that killed tens of millions of sea stars along the same shores from California to Alaska over the past 18 months, some scientists suspect a factor in both cases may be uncharacteristically warm waters.
The U.S. Geological Survey and others have performed animal autopsies, called necropsies, on several of the emaciated Cassin's auklets. They've found no evidence of disease or trauma—no viruses or bacteria, no feathers coated with spilled oil. The birds appear simply to have starved to death.
Uncharacteristically warm waters. At a time when the oceans are warming at their fastest known rate:

In a study out today in the journal Science, researchers say that the middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years.
Most of the heat that humanity has put into the atmosphere since the 1970s from greenhouse gas emissions has likely been absorbed by the oceans, according to the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-sponsored group of scientists that issues reports every few years about the effects of global warming.

For now, the mass deaths seem to be contained to seabirds. But, scientists warn that it may not end there:

Sydeman predicts that this spring or summer the dying might spread to the salmon and forage fish that eat those same plankton species and then perhaps to the murres or other birds that, in turn, eat those fish.
"I think there's a strong possibility of it escalating to affect other species in the near future," he said.

Let's seriously hope these seabirds aren't our canary in the coal mine.

Agelbert NOTE: "CONTAINED" to seabirds? My what an interesting view ( of the massive deaths of innocent birds because of what Homo SAPS do. After all, it's ALWAYS been about US, right? Tough luck for other life forms as long as we can industrially heat, beat and treat our way to prosperity and piggery, RIGHT?

Folks, we are WAY past "canaries", folks. Enjoy our Ecocidal Suicide, fellow Homo SAPS in general and Homo Apex Predatorus (
in particular.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 10, 2015, 06:37:21 pm
Geo-engineering INSANITY (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 15, 2015, 04:09:39 pm
They NEVER get to show up at my doorstep and demand money from me for what I "owe" them, they cannot garnish my wages or file liens against me...and it is because I am not in their debt.

This seems to be the big difference between "debts" and regular expenses (the latter do not represent any claim on your assets). However, I think what JM is pointing out, is that many people end up owing debts on unpaid expenses such as rent or some other service, especially in this economic environment. These debts usually don't become too large, because the service provider will simply cut off service until the amount owed is repaid. If payment is not forthcoming, then they will close out the account and sell off the debt (in the case of landlords, they will simply evict you and use your security deposit towards unpaid rent).

This is where the debt collection agencies come in and start harassing the **** out of you for payment. If the debtor does not succumb to their initial attempts, they may start offering to accept partial payment as satisfaction. Throughout this whole process, they literally bank on the fact that most consumer debtors are unaware of any federal or state protections they have from these debt collectors (the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is the federal model). (
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pub. L. 95-109; 91 Stat. 874, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1692 –1692p, approved on September 20, 1977 (and as subsequently amended) is a consumer protection amendment, establishing legal protection from abusive debt collection practices, to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as Title VIII of that Act. The statute's stated purposes are: to eliminate abusive practices in the collection of consumer debts, to promote fair debt collection, and to provide consumers with an avenue for disputing and obtaining validation of debt information in order to ensure the information's accuracy.[1] The Act creates guidelines under which debt collectors may conduct business, defines rights of consumers involved with debt collectors, and prescribes penalties and remedies for violations of the Act. It is sometimes used in conjunction with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Rarely do these collectors resort to filing a warrant in debt against the consumer, since they are usually proceeding against people who have very few assets, and the few assets they do have may be protected from lien attachments. Of course a lot of this depends on the specific jurisdiction. If an attorney gets involved, then they usually tread much more carefully. All communications must go through the consumer's attorney. If they don't have proof of the original debt owed (many times they don't), then eventually they will just drop it. No need to feel sorry for them though (in case anyone here actually was  :o), because they still make a **** load of money with that business model.

BTW, if anyone reading this has problems with these creditors/collectors, or knows someone that does, and they live in VA, send me a PM! I may be able to help free of charge.

Thank you Ashvin, for giving a dose of logic about truth and justice to MKing. ( As usual, when MKing can't argue the point with his mindless (and evil) obsession with justifying conscience free predation, he ignores the factual data.

The MKing mantra spewed out OVER and OVER and OVER for the past year or more:
What it is about taking responsibility for ones actions that you abhor so much?

As Surly pointed out and JRM, WHD and JD have reinforced by their comments, the guy is a walking case of projection. He absolutely ABHORS taking responsibility for any and all DEBTS he incurs with the biosphere in general and his fellow man in particular. In order to push this BULLSHIT, he needs to define VERY NARROWLY what "incurring a debt" IS.

MKing's glial cells were infected through a massive colonization (corporate takeover  ( by fecal coliforms. However, I suppose it is better to have one's brain full of sh it than being bat sh it crazy (but he may very well be BOTH!)...


MKing, you are in DEBT WAY BEYOND your eyeballs because you and your kind were SUCKERED into believing you could offload costs onto the biosphere and fellow humans. You SIGNED the planetary pollution mortgage that YOU CANNOT PAY. You are an irresponsible POS! You are a welfare queen on steroids and you are a parasite of the first order.

You are bankrupt. In fact, ever since you made that DECISION about "what life is all about" (I.E. **** your buddy is that only thing that pays.  : (, you became the biggest sucker in the world. IOW, moral bankruptcy, in this planet, is the ultimate cause of the physical bankruptcy in our biosphere that we are now experiencing BECAUSE OF DELUSIONAL, IRRESPONSIBLE SUCKERS LIKE YOU.

I understand why you keep believing we are pond scum. Pond scum does not have to act responsibly.   (  (

Have a nice day.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 17, 2015, 02:20:39 pm
Apparently it's something the CIA is either (a) worried about...or (b) wants to do to the empire's enemies. Not sure which, but neither is good. (

I believe geo engineering is quite advanced even though they (quote from our government "we will own the weather by 2025"   ( don't "own" the weather yet. The reflective aluminum particles being sprayed routinely for over a decade now to keep our climate from over heating (see stretching the profits of fossil fuel oligarchs that OWN our government) are having several unexpected results.

1) The temperature extreme ranges have increased in degree span and rapidity of switching from normal to extreme heat or extreme cold. This is killing wildlife.

2) Vitamin D deficiency is now common in the USA when it was RARE just two decades ago. As a medical professional, you know that Vitamin D deficiency can lead to a plethora of deleterious health issues, including giving you lots of dental problems, never mind the weaker bones in growing children, early osteoporosis in adults and less immune system defense of several types of cancers.

3) Allergic reactions to the new toxins ins the air for thousands of different species, including Homo SAPs.

4) There a lot more
but that has to do with government media and medical profession CORKING of the reporting of, medical recognition of and proper treatment of humans experiencing harmful side effects from this profit preserving scheme for fossil fuelers trying to prevent or/and delay global warming.

Anecdotally, I have something to report that has me absolutely raging mad. The temperature is way too low for normal in Vermont. It's been that way for a couple of weeks. That long of a period with temperatures hovering just above or below zero (even in daylight) is NOT Vermont weather and, except for the little ice age centuries ago, never has been.

Even when it gets real cold, the animals survive BECAUSE the longer sunlight period in late February and early March enables them to warm their nests in the day. But when you debilitate the sunlight by putting reflective particles in the air, this VITAL buffer that enables animal life to make it to the spring is gone. This is a DEATH SENTENCE for much of Vermont wildlife that doesn't hibernate.

Today I found an uninjured adult squirrel frozen to death. It was laying on our driveway. It's just another debt the MKing's of this world do not own up to with their profit over planet murderous irresponsibility.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2015, 01:36:58 am
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 22, 2015, 01:00:53 am
Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 10:33 PM EST.

Pacific Dying
by New Minas
I am sorry to tell you this, I know that you don't want to believe that this is happening, but it is.  I am sorry. (        (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 23, 2015, 12:17:58 am

Corporate Money Vs. Water 

 Hear Native American leaders wisdom about fracking and why it must be banned. It is nothing less than a system that is going to pollute the veins of Mother Earth.

 We hear Senator James Inhofe (R- OK) enthusiastically declare that there is enough natural gas to supply our needs for the next 35 years in the Marcellus Shale (NY- PA).

 The film then directs our attention to the following: It's about our needs vs. our children's future.

 Where is the long term thinking and responsible leadership?

 "Regulations and fines do not protect the environment. There is no way to undo the harm hydro fracking will cause" says Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. "When you sit and you counsel for the welfare of the people, think not of yourself, nor of your family, nor even your generation. Make decisions on behalf of the 7th generation coming... you have to defend and protect them so that they may enjoy what you enjoy today."

 --Bibi Farber

 This video was made by "Reel Change for Nonprofits" participants Tracy Basile and Scott Halfmann of WESPAC and Friends of Turtle Island.
- See more at:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 23, 2015, 04:16:56 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 28, 2015, 03:43:00 pm

What Percent of Earth’s Surface Do Urban Areas Comprise? (

Although urban areas account for just 1.5% of the Earth's land area, they contain over 50% of the world's population. Much of Earth's population growth also occurs in urban areas: 54% in 2014, which is up from 34% in 1960. Earth has approximately 37 billion acres of land, with nearly 8 billion acres of that land being arable (land capable of being used to grow crops). If by 2050 the world's population reaches the predicted 9 billion, there would be enough land on Earth for every individual to have 4 acres to themselves.
 ( (

Agelbert NOTE: That last statement takes the prize for biosphere math challenged moronic statistics. A human, because he is a FUNCTION of the biosphere, REQUIRES a LOT MORE than 4 acres of BIOSPHERE, with all the life forms that entails, to survive. That said, the problem is the upper 20% of humanity that CAUSES over 80% of the POLLUTION. Population and biomass are not the problem. The world ant biomass is far greater than the human biomass. The same can be said for the zooplankton. The war loving, conscience free, 1.5% or so of humanity IS the problem.

More about land use:

•Queen Elizabeth II of England owns most of the Earth's land at roughly 6.6 billion acres.  :o  ::)

•In 2009, more than 50% of people were living in urban areas rather than rural areas.

•Non-arable land can be converted to arable land through various techniques such as creating new irrigation canals, planting trees, adding fertilizer, and greenhouses.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2015, 01:30:32 am
Geo-engineering will backfire badly. Count on it. The USAF has its head totally up its descending colon.  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2015, 01:41:47 am
Former FBI agent warns that chemtrails are harming the biosphere.

Uploaded on Sep 16, 2011

What does a Former FBI Special Agent and Chief have to say about ChemTrails? You will be Surprised! Here is the WikiPedia report on who this Great Man was: Theodore L. Gunderson (Ted) (November 7, 1928 - July 31, 2011[1]) was a retired United States Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent In Charge and head of the Los Angeles FBI. He was most famous for handling the Marilyn Monroe and John F. Kennedy cases. Ted Gunderson was born in Colorado Springs. He graduated from the University of Nebraska in 1950. Gunderson joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation in December 1951 under J. Edgar Hoover. He served in the Mobile, Knoxville, New York City, and Albuquerque offices. He held posts as an Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge in New Haven and Philadelphia. In 1973 he became the head of the Memphis FBI and then the head of the Dallas FBI in 1975. Ted Gunderson was appointed the head of the Los Angeles FBI in 1977, In 1979 he was one of a handful interviewed for the job of FBI director, which ultimately went to William H. Webster.

Get involved in what is getting Sprayed right on you, your friends and loved ones! We need MORE people to record whats Going on Above your Heads! Look Up People! Get involved!!! Video Whats going on, Create your OWN YouTube Channel -- UPLOAD and make Public what they are doing to ALL OF US!!! Also I encourage Everyone to search and Watch the Documentary " What In the World Are they Spraying? " It has SCIENTIFIC FACTS and many statements from REAL SCIENTISTS with PhD's that will TELL You that ChemTrails ARE REAL! Spread the Word, POINT the Chemtrails OUT to Others WHEN they are above and just ask them What do you think those are? Hopefully the People will continue researching ChemTrails on their own!

SEE Patent #5003186 owned by Hughes Aircraft Company, this PROVES that chemicals or fine aluminum and or barium particles CAN BE MIXED AND DISTRIBUTED Via the Jet Fuel!
This CLEARLY explain's why some ChemTrails are formed directly from the engine exhaust!
*** US Patent 5003186 Stratospheric welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming (spraying with aluminum) ***
Title: USAF has its head totally up its descending colon.
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2015, 06:41:25 pm
Geo-engineering will backfire badly. Count on it. The USAF has its head totally up its descending colon.  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2015, 08:49:11 pm
Since the YEAR 2000, the Department of Energy and Department of Defense have been GEO-engineering a heat shield (that does not work!   (

Published on Mar 23, 2013

Dr. Perlinigieri exposes many aspects of the Chemtrails including nanoparticles as well as aerosol chemtrails loaded with toxins and poisons.

When  jet engine burns a hydrocarbon, CO2 and H2O are produced. THAT water freezes at high altitude (above about 21,000 feet). YOU see a contrail. The contrail dissipates quickly (the ice descends and melts or sublimates into transparent water vapor or very thin high stratus clouds.).

A dead giveaway that a jet is NOT producing contrails is when you see it suddenly stop producing them and start a few seconds later. That is prima facie, irrefutable evidence of a sprayed aerosol. The atmosphere DOES NOT change temperature enough to suddenly NOT FREEZE water for a few seconds and then suddenly decide to freeze it a mile or so later in flight!

Also, commercial jets DO NOT do course reversals unless they have an emergency. Chemtrail patterns show OBVIOUS U-turns according to a spray pattern.

Aerosol CHEMTRAILS STAY in the atmosphere because they are lighter than water AND they reflect sunlight. They spread and form alto-stratus like clouds (but slightly thicker, such as cumulus clouds, that usually occur closer to the surface). The result is, among other harmful effects on biota when these aerosols finally reach the ground, that the surface experiences rapid cooling and temperature extremes.

However, the reflected sunlight DOES NOT make it out of the atmosphere, as was hoped by the NUT CASE DR. Strangeloves from the fossil fuel industry that came up with this scheme to preserve fossil fuel profits.   (

That's right, boys and girls, the climate CONTINUES to warm because the CO2, and now more and more CH4 (methane) keep building up.

THAT MEANS that, when the temperature swings from cold to hot or hot to cold, the daily range swing of temperature is greater, which harms all life that is not sheltered (the wildlife). (

THAT ALSO MEANS that storms are more violent because rapid temperature changes fuel storm intensity and duration.  ( (

THAT ALSO MEANS that when hot temperatures are BENEATH the "heat shield", as they are during the summer, the IR portion gets TRAPPED - reflected back down to the ground. The result is MORE DROUGHTS and HIGHER TEMPERATURES according to the drift pattern of the aerosols.  (   (

And THEN there are the documented toxic effects of these poisonous compounds on the flora and fauna.

In short, it is one of the STUPIDEST pieces of brain dead "apex predator" insanity since the Military Joint Chiefs recommended to President Eisenhower that we go to war with the Russians before they got enough nukes to kill more than 20 million or so of the people of the USA. ( YES, they ACTUALLY recommended that. And YEAH, it was the RAND corporation that passed that bit of game theory BULL**** to the military. Hollywood picked up on it and made a movie. It was called Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Have a nice day. (  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2015, 09:19:24 pm
NON-intelligent DESIGN   (

Published on Nov 20, 2014

Chemtrails Exposed By Pilots, Doctors, Scientists, Meteorologists, Neurologists, Biologists, &
Attorneys. Soil & Water Tested High In Aluminum, Barium, & Strontium.


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 04, 2015, 05:57:51 pm
Europe is getting "heat shielded" TOO!  :P
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 04, 2015, 07:42:15 pm

The courageous scientist above died in 2013.
This was one of her last lectures. Please pass it on.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 06, 2015, 07:29:35 pm
Knarf said,
I just realized how INTENSE the conditioning in the monastery is. I can even liken it to voluntarily entering in prison. There will be no way i will be able to communicate with words, what the experience is of living this lifestyle.

I can thank you all for helping me see that. After 30 years of being here I have become quite rigid because of the structure, and agreements that exist here. To tell you the truth, i have been thinking about leaving and getting free of this sanctuary. But at my age, and physical condition, not to mention the expense, i will likely die here. I can actually see that I appear to have much more rigid conditions, than those of you who are free in the world. At this present time I am tending to agree with that assessment.

Now this is not totally depressing to me, and I do feel I made the right choice to enter......but this has grown to be too predictable. We leave very few "footprints" in the attempt to do no harm to each other or the environment, and raise animals and vegetables and live below the poverty line so we paid no taxes to the feds or state.......and that is the way it has been for 30 years for me, and it started in 1975.

Big freaking deal. If I could figure a way to leave, and still keep those principles going, I would be sorely tempted. I know for sure that all of you are doing the best you can.  

It IS a GIANT VICTORY over the profit over planet biosphere challenged MORONS THAT you HAVE ACHIEVED. NEVER forget that! You have been contributing to a healthy biosphere by your stoic avoidance of a polluting lifestyle. Consider the amount of fossil fuels you DID NOT burn and the amount of innocent life you DID NOT harm. That is REAL. That has given us a fighting chance to give the finger to the morons that do not get it. It might have even convinced many biosphere math challenged idiots, like I used to be, to get with the Renewable Energy and sustainability program.

The legacy of your actions is important. If everyone did what you do for seven generations, the biosphere would be more livable, more viable and more healthy. THAT is the litmus test of a life well lived.

You have NOTHING to be disappointed with in your walk.

Of course it is lamentably true that people that take renewable energy and respect for all life seriously are in the minority. It is also true that we are probably totally forked. SO?

Doing the right thing is all that really matters. WHY? Because doing the wrong thing is stupid. Intelligent people do not engage in stupid behavior.

MKing is quick to bring up the desperate poor who will do whatever it takes to make ends meet. He extrapolates, from the energy seeking nature and example of humans trying to avoid death by starvation, that it's okay to pollute the sh it out of the planet and fix it later. We know that is just self serving bull****. He probably knows it too. He can only make a case for his conscience free behavior with hyperbole.  (

Therefore, his arguments fail the test of being true in all cases. The fact is that most life forms do what they do in total harmony with the biosphere. Those of us who are self aware can pretend we are tigers with tools in order to justify very UNtiger like polluting piggery, but it's "logic" only a used car salesman could love.

LOGIC dictates that respect for all life is a moral imperative in a biosphere. You take life when you absolutely have to in order to survive, period. MKing's "logic" is that you take life (or harm it by your polluting enterprise) BECAUSE YOU CAN.

That's the "logic" of the snapping turtle in the wash bucket (that I put about 6 frogs in without providing them a place to hide from the snapper). That is NOT logical for a self aware being that realizes that, if he kills all his food supply, he will starve.

Yes Knarf, there are way to many MKings out there. But that does not give those of us who get it an excuse to behave stupidly.

The native Americans understood it. If everybody in the tribe does exactly what you do through six more generations, if the seventh generation experience no degradation of the biosphere, THAT BEHAVIOR IS MORAL=INTELLIGENT=RESPECT FOR ALL LIFE behavior.

As to old age narrowing our choices, that's par for the course. I'm there too.  (

Remember what Mark Antony said (according to Shakespeare), "The Evil men do lives long after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar."

YOU know you did the right thing and that HELPED HUMANITY.   ( It matters not what anybody else says.

 I am grateful to you for doing it.  ( ( 


As for MKing, I will ENJOY his reaction when the EFFECTS of what he continues to do hit THIS generation, never mind the next six generations...
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 20, 2015, 09:21:24 pm
Geoengineer, Ken Caldeira Comes Clean On Chemtrails
By Bob Fitrakis (Free Press)

“Caldeira, then a scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs, [who] admitted that he had conducted the original computer modeling for the use of chemicals like aluminum oxide to fight global warming.”

Noted climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute for Science at Stanford has finally popped the question.
In an article entitled “One Known Way to Cool the Earth” on the February 16, 2015 USA Today opinion page, Caldeira writes:
“There is basically only one way known to cool the Earth rapidly.”… “is to reflect more of the sun’s warming rays back to space.”

What will it take to do this? According to Caldeira, only:

The reality is that the U.S. government has been spraying for well over a decade and a half in plain view while attacking anyone pointing it out. They’ve been making a chemical haze of clouds and putting a sunscreen in the sky. Small white planes, some of them associated with Battelle Memorial Institute, have been creating clouds in a criss-cross pattern in the sky.
Jasper Kirkby, PhD – Climate investigator, revealed his knowledge of the covert aerosol dumps in a 2009 lecture at CERN

Worrying about “Chemtrails” is often derided as a tinfoil hat conspiracy but transparency almost broke out when former Congressman Dennis Kucinich actually introduced a bill (HR-2977) referring to the elimination of Chemtrails as an “exotic weapon” in 2002. The term “chemtrail” was later removed in a later version of the bill.
In December 2001, I had written an article called “Stormy weather — The government’s top secret efforts to control Mother Nature.”

In the story I quoted Caldeira, then a scientist at Lawrence Livermore Labs, who admitted that he had conducted the original computer modeling for the use of chemicals like aluminum oxide to fight global warming.

He told me at the time
, “We originally did the study to show that this program shouldn’t be done.” He alluded to possibly negative health effects from using massive chemical spraying for weather modification.

At the time, the leading promoter of this “Better living through chemistry” approach to global warming remediation was Edward Teller. The father of the H-bomb and grand promoter of Atoms for Peace, Teller spent his last few years advocating aerial spraying to counter global warming before he died in 2003.

The April 24, 2002 New York Times reported that Teller
“has promoted the idea of manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere to counteract global warming.”
Two scientists from Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio acknowledged that planes were already spraying barium salt polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals in the atmosphere to both modify the weather and for military communication purposes.
The military has been using spraying to make cloud formations that create “sky antennas” to assist drones and provide over the horizon communication. Kucinich referred me to the military’s document “Joint Vision for 2020″ that outlines a directed energy program designed for “full spectrum dominance of the Earth.”
The Wright Pat scientists pointed to a paper by the United States Air Force entitled: “Weather as a force multiplier: Owning the weather by 2025.” The scientists referred me to U.S. patent #6315213 filed on November 13, 2002. The patent abstract specifically states: “The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.”

Caldeira explained,
“With the Earth in a fevered state, the pressure to put on a ‘solar geoengineering’ ice pack could become irresistible, especially if this ice pack could potentially save millions of lives.”
The U.S. government needs to come clean on this top secret program that’s being done without any environmental impact statements. In a democracy we need full transparency and the public needs to know what the government knows that justifies this aerial sunscreen spraying. At least Caldeira spells it out:
“If current trends in green-house gas emissions continue, unprecedented megadroughts may plague much of the western USA, and the tropics may get so hot that widespread crop failures and famines become commonplace.”
Bob Fitrakis (born November 29, 1955) is an American political author and writer,[1][2] political candidate,[3] and Professor of Political Science in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State Community College. He has been the editor of the Columbus Free Press since 1993 and wrote extensively about the U.S. presidential election, 2004 and related 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. (Complete Bio)
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 21, 2015, 04:03:53 pm
Ka said,
It helps if one realizes that individual freedom tends to be inversely proportional to quantity of possessions, as long as basic necessities are met. It is a hard sell, but I think it will get easier as collapse becomes obvious.

(   (

GO and UB's three step reaction to Ka's wisdom:
(  ( (

It must be so wonderful to be free as a lark on a beautiful spring day; rather than be bound in chains like poor Mr Blankfein on his way to St. Martin for a long weekend of sun and fun in his Lear jet. He would be thrilled no doubt that folks understand his predicament.  :exp-grin:

He's gonna get his when collapse becomes apparent, yes siree.  :icon_sunny:   [smg id=2742 type=full align=center caption=""]


Careful, old chum, your ENVY of the super rich (crooks) is showing. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 21, 2015, 04:07:18 pm
The 3 Reasons Money Brings Satisfaction But Not Happiness  (

If money doesn’t bring happiness, then why do people behave as though it does?
It seems only natural that happiness should flow from having more money. Even if they don’t admit it, people still behave as though it were true. More money means you can have what you want and do what you want. The house you dream of? It’s yours. The new car you desire? Here are the keys. The freedom to enjoy your favourite pastimes? Here’s your racket, the court is down there, just past the pool.

So the puzzle is this: why do social scientists consistently find only moderate relationships between having more money and being happy? Some have even suggested that this moderate connection might be exaggerated. In reality money might have very little to do with happiness at all.

Most puzzling, though, is that people often seem aware at some level that money won’t make them happy. And yet they continue to work away earning money they don’t objectively need.

First, though, let’s look at the three reasons money doesn’t make us happy:

1.It’s relative income that’s important.
As I’ve noted previously, money is relative. It turns out we don’t mind so much about our actual level of income, so long as we’re earning more than other people around us. Unfortunately as we earn more money we’re likely to be surrounded by richer people so we often end up failing to take advantage of the positive comparison.

2.Material goods don’t make us happy.
Acquiring things like houses and cars only have a transient effect on happiness. People’s desires for material possessions crank up at the same, or greater rate, than their salaries. Again, this means that despite considerably more luxurious possessions, people end up no happier. There’s even evidence that materialism make us less happy.

3.People don’t shift to enjoyable activities when they are rich. People who earn more money don’t spend their time enjoying themselves, they spend their time at work, in activities likely to cause them more stress and tension. This may be because of ‘the focusing illusion’. When people think about earning more money they probably imagine they would use the money on recreational activities. In fact, to earn the money, they have to spend more time at work, and commuting to and from work. (

Libertarian response to the above proven scientific reality.   ;)

Agelbert NOTE:
My dear friend GO, fellow Diner and respectful Libertarian debater of the "joys" of getting yours. I suggest you ponder the above truths. They are born of investigation, not religious beliefs (that you happen to have, by the way  ;)) about happiness being inversely proportional to the quantity of material possessions one has. Take a hard look at al those CEOs that you think are so happy. LOOK at their faces in the pictures where they pose with their best foot forward with a look of arrogant smug satisfaction. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS HAPPINESS? I don't.

I used to have the Libertarian World View that "Money isn't everything, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place".   ( I learned that is so false as to be an Orwellian statement.

Assuming (something I do not assume at all!) that the Bible is not an objective resource, let us look at what the Documented, Scientifically Observed behavior of Homo SAPS says about how having MORE makes people WANT MORE, be LESS satisfied and happy and be MORE acquisitive than those who have less (i.e. Having more really is inversely proportional to being happy with what you HAVE).


Existing scientific research on the value of materialism yields clear and consistent findings. People who are highly focused on materialistic values have lower personal well-being and psychological health than those who believe that materialistic pursuits are relatively unimportant.

These relationships have been documented in sample of people ranging from wealthy to poor, from teenagers to the elderly, and from Australians to South Koreans.

Several investigators have reported similar results using a variety of ways of measuring materialism.

The studies document
that strong materialist values are associated with pervasive undermining of people's well-being, from low life satisfaction to happiness, to depression and anxiety, to physical problems such as headaches, and to personality disorders, narcissistic, and antisocial behaviors. (


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 21, 2015, 04:44:22 pm
I used to have the Libertarian World View that "Money isn't everything, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place".  :evil4: I learned that is so false as to be an Orwellian statement.

Spoken like a person who chased down and fought in the courts for his 200 grand inheritance like a starved lion drooling over fresh bloody meat, and then lost the legal battle. 

Always wondered AG, Had you gotten your paws on the 200 big ones would you have become a Republican or a Libertarian the following day?? 
:cwmddd:     :laugh: 

Excellent observation and even more excellent inquiry. I did explain why I did what I did back then, but you forgot that so I will mention it again and fill in any "greed based, money worshipping, and so on" (see your "compliment" about my paws... temper, temper, old boy  ( no need to get offensive. ;D) impressions you may have received from my quixotic pro se efforts.

If I had gotten $200,000.00 from the inheritance, the plan was for my wife to be able to survive when I am dead. I do not have survivor benefits on my pension. Besides my Federal Government Pension, I collect $49 a month in Social Security due to the small amount of money I earned outside of the Federal Government after I was retired (selling Lifetime kitchenware, reflective film for business and residential energy savings, applying Jan mortar to the concrete facia of large, multi-story buildings (that was exciting!). booth operator at Burlington Airport parking and a paper route with my wife for the Burlington Free Press from 1998 to 2006 (I did enjoy the outdoor work quite a bit!).

NO social security was taken out while I was in the Federal Government (20 years). I managed to get enough Social Security quarters but the "pension" from Social Security (about $150) has Medicare part B subtracted from it.

So, WHEN I die (I'm ten years older than my wife), she will get SNAP fun and games and about half of $150 a month to live on, period. Here in Vermont, Carmen, with a Cum Laude BS degree in chemistry, some experience as a science teacher and assistant lab technician, applied for a job.

They would not hire her, even though she passed the chemistry knowledge questionnaire they gave her for the  ridiculously easy quality control job (a TEMPORARY JOB to fill in for sombody on vacation!) of looking through a scope to check for faults in a nicotine patch, because "she struggled with English". That is TOTAL BULL****. Sure, she has an accent, but EVERY chemistry and biochemistry book and course she ACED was in ENGLISH!

But let us not dwell on the local bigotry. If I do, some fine Diner will suggest I go back where I came from, or some other bit of duplicity to avoid the issue.    (

The point is that my wife will have to sell the manufactured home when I die because she just cannot afford to live in a TRAILER that she owns any more because of the rent payments (and $900 a year property taxes).

If I had gotten the $200,000.00 my wife would have, at $1,500 a month (basic necessity living requirements here), about 130 months of the SAME standard of living we have now. She is 10 years younger than I am. I would have provided for her as much as I provided for myself. I wish I could have done that. That's all I wanted. It was not greed. It is now in God's hands.

I can live with that BECAUSE I did the best I could while maintaining my standards of ethical behavior. My best efforts, born of altruism, not greed, were not enough. Bad stuff happens. (

Not wanting my wife to be homeless is rather different from greedily fighting for an inheritance, don't you agree? And I would NOT resort to unethical behavior to ensure my wife was not homeless. Anyone that thinks that unethical behavior is justified to feed your family is wrong. I hope you agree. Because if you don't, we will NEVER agree.

The rationalization to do WHATEVER so your FAMILY can be safe, secure and happy is EXACTLY what got Homo SAPdom to the suicidal box canyon it is in now.   (

Blankfein poses for the camera.  ;D

This is guy is clearly as happy as a used car salesman. This "happiness" requires a constant devotion to finding new and better ways to make a sucker out of fellow Homo SAPS. Psychologically speaking, that "happiness" produces dysfunctional families, physical and mental health problems for all involved with this ethics challenged Homo SAP (including himself) and leads DIRECTLY to exploitation of planetary resources without reflection.

From the scamming, UNJUST behavior to the polluting UNJUST behavior, this is evil.

Now then, if you believe that EVIL behavior produces this brand of "happiness", then you CANNOT believe that the happiness, as we all define it, is related to having more material possessions by whatever means.

I single out Blankfein because YOU, GO, brought him up for the express purpose of ridiculing the validity of the quote from Ka I was celebrating.

But the SCIENCE says that, UNJUST acquisition of material possessions aside, INHERITED, as well as other JUST acquisitions of material possessions makes people LESS HAPPY than they were before they got the goodies. That is because, once they have MORE, they WANT MORE.  (

There is no way around that, old chum. No, I don't sell used cars.  ;D

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 28, 2015, 08:40:53 pm

Great Video!  (    (  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 28, 2015, 08:59:46 pm

Bill Gates follows in his father's FOOTSTEPS.   (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 28, 2015, 09:03:58 pm
Monsanto's Best-Selling Herbicide Has Cut Monarch Population by 90 Percent  >:(

Two videos and an in depth discussion of the biosphere and human health destroying tactics of the most Dangerous Corporation in the World.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 29, 2015, 07:48:16 pm
Rhode Island Legislature Initiates Prohibition Against Geoengineering ( (

The Rhode Island legislature submitted HB 7655 in April 2014. The Bill was held for review and apparently died in committee;
The 2015 legislature submitted a new Bill – HB 5480 – currently being held for review.


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 30, 2015, 12:24:41 am
Now for some gallows humor. Learn ALL ABOUT Patrick Moore. (

Study Reveals Monsanto's RoundUp Chemicals Are LETHAL Even In Small Doses  

South Berkshire Research Institute   
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 31, 2015, 10:37:42 pm

Watch Viral Video: Nebraska Man Asks Oil and Gas Commission One Simple Question: ‘Would You Drink It?’  ;D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 06, 2015, 07:31:43 pm
Published Mar 23, 2015
Life, Death and Chemicals

Much of America’s strawberry supply is farmed atop a rich deposit of oil. For a family living among the pesticides and drilling, the source of their health problems is a painful mystery. Welcome to the California tar sands.

Story by Natalie Cherot

Snippet 1:
On the morning of June 21, 2011, a 54-year-old Chevron worker named David Taylor was checking on a well in Kern County, northeast of Oxnard. Cyclic steaming is supposed to happen well below the surface, but, oddly, steam was rising from the ground. When Taylor and two co-workers went to check on it, the earth opened up and sucked him into a hole filled with hydrogen sulfide and water heated to nearly 90 degrees Celsius. A colleague later said, “Other workers could not react in time to save him from falling.” Taylor burned alive.

The state’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, or DOGGR, launched an investigation and found that while Taylor had avoided stepping on wet ground, years of steaming had made even the dry ground at the oil field unstable.

An investigator’s photo of the crater shows Taylor’s hardhat laying beside it. That evening, workers found Taylor’s remains about five feet underground.

Nonetheless, regulators allowed Chevron to continue steaming, even as more of these euphemistically named “surface expressions” cropped up.

On Aug. 4 that year, the surface expressed violently: The ground 12 meters from Taylor’s crater exploded. Large rocks and oil catapulted 45 meters, a tsunami of oil.

DOGGR restricted steaming for 90 meters around the area. Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 17, another crater erupted. Steam billowed into the sky. DOGGR expanded the buffer to 240 meters but allowed drilling to continue. Steaming water and hot oil seeped up from craters on the well pad throughout September and November as Chevron continued its work. Employees said the earth shook beneath them.

In October, just four months after Taylor’s death, instead of imposing further new regulations, California Gov. Jerry Brown sought permitting shortcuts from regulators to let drillers begin steam injection faster. The head of the Department of Conservation, Derek Chernow, wrote a memo asserting that doing so would be illegal. A week later, Brown fired him.

For Taylor’s death, the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health fined Chevron $350.

Delgado saw Taylor’s death and the state’s response as proof that California bureaucrats were not interested in protecting the state from oil drillers. The same cyclic steaming happening in Kern was happening in their backyard.

The night before Christmas Eve last year, she called a special council meeting about the construction of a fourth power plant in the city. She invited Delgado and Anguiano to attend and speak out against it.

Locals queued for their three minutes at the podium, where one by one they demanded an end to chemical dumping, methane flares, pesticides, hydraulic fracturing and on and on. Delgado squirmed in his chair, but every position seemed painful. He was not in the mood to address the council. Tonight he would just watch and listen.

“There are too many chemicals here,” declared one resident from the crowd before she got up and walked out of the meeting.

Afterward, Anguiano approached Delgado and said, “My doctor says she wouldn’t even know what out there was making me sick if I got sick.”

“We expect the new city manager to perform miracles,” Delgado replied.

Actually, the miracle came at the end of last year, when the oil companies slowed down their drilling all on their own. And it had nothing to do with Ramirez, Anguiano, Delgado or regulators.

Between December and January, a global oversupply of crude sent the price plummeting so low that it sent shocks throughout the California oil industry. Oil companies and oil field subcontractors laid off workers and withdrew oil permit applications all across Ventura County. Without the drilling tax revenue, local governments were in a panic; Kern, the county where Taylor died, declared a fiscal emergency. On Jan. 19, crude hit $47 a barrel.

There was no celebration, however. That same day, Delgado went in for his first chemotherapy appointment. A week before Ramirez’s pre-Christmas meeting, Delgado’s doctor told him there was a tumor in his stomach. His prognosis is poor.

Natalie Cherot, PhD, is a journalist based in California.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 13, 2015, 10:55:34 pm
"I have seen my country dissolve before my eyes".

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 14, 2015, 12:34:06 am
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 14, 2015, 01:13:06 pm
04/13/2015 01:54 PM            
25,000 Canadians March Against Fracking & Tar Sands Pipelines News

In one of Canada's largest climate marches, 25,000 people rallied in Quebec City this weekend, with concurrent marches in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia.

They sent provincial premiers three simple messages:

Yes to taking strong action on climate change

No to expanding Canada's tar sands and pipelines

Yes to renewable energy

The march anticipates Tuesday's conference on climate change, where provincial premiers will purportedly work on a national energy strategy and prepare commitments for December's Climate Change Summit. Although he was invited, Canadian Prime Minister Harper will not attend.

Just days before, 2,700 liters of toxic bunker fuel spilled in Vancouver's English Bay.
People want the premiers to know, "We've reached our boiling point ( , much like the planet has," say the organizers, a coalition of First Nations and environmental groups across Canada.

In 2012, premiers attempted to develop a national energy strategy, but it became mired in the age-old province versus national governing debate. And while most of Canada will soon price carbon, provincial leaders somehow still support tar sands oil and fracking.

Council of Canadians notes:

Alberta premier Jim Prentice describes the Keystone XL pipeline - which would emit 22 million tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions a year - as 'environmentally defensible'.  (

Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall says he will be 'disappointed' if President Obama vetoes the Keystone pipeline. (

British Columbia premier Christy Clark is championing development of LNG export terminals in the province, even though just five terminals would release 13 million tons of GHG emissions, after fracking and transport generate 15 million tons.   (

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne, who is shepherding through cap-and-trade, also wants to help Alberta get its tar sands oil to market.  (

New Brunswick premier Brian Gallant has publicly backed the idea of twinning Energy East from Alberta to his province with a fracked gas pipeline that could feed an LNG export terminal in Saint John.   (

The premier of the Northwest Territories has been promoting the Arctic Gateway pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil to the Arctic Ocean.  (

"A study in the January edition of the journal Nature put our challenge plainly: Canada must leave 85% of tar sands in the soil to help the human race avoid catastrophic climate change.

That means no new tar sands pipelines. No Keystone, no Energy East, no Kinder Morgan, No Northern Gateway. Build even one, and we torpedo our chances of stopping global warming.

We stand on the edge of a precipice, and a lack of political will threatens to send us over it. Our Premiers need to choose. We cannot protect the climate while expanding the tar sands and approving new pipelines," says Maude Barlow, Chair of Council of Canadians.

"We are demanding a Canadian energy strategy which features meaningful regulatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, a just transition to conservation, energy efficiency and the rapid expansion of public and community-owned renewable energy. Intimately linked to these efforts is our call to oppose the 'free trade' agenda of NAFTA, CETA and the WTO given they undermine the ability of all levels of governments to regulate the sale or extraction of fossil fuels and promote renewable energy ( ( ," says Barlow.

"We are very wary and would oppose a strategy that allows business as usual - namely, the pursuit of an energy superpower status through increased exports based on unfettered ongoing fossil-fuel exploitation.
The social and environmental costs of this are all too clear," adds Andrea Harden-Donahue, an energy and climate justice campaigner.

Read our article, Canadians Rise Up Against Their Own Keystone Pipelines.

Message to status quo loving, logic challenged, greedball human SCUM:


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 17, 2015, 08:24:07 pm
Never before seen Whale Calf Mutations.  :(
Published on Jan 14, 2014

governments, and mainstream media are covering up Fukushimas Radiation Waves hitting the West Coast of the U.S.

As radiation levels spike and mutated wildlife washes ashore, government and media promote delusion.

Radiation hot spots are popping up around the United States thousands of percentages higher than 'background radiation', mutated wildlife is being found dead on the same West Coast beaches where increased radiation levels have been documented by independent researchers and the Fukushima TEPCO plant workers have been caught using duct tape to fix their nuclear equipment. But according to both the Japanese and United States governments, these events mean absolutely nothing.

In fact, you must be a conspiracy theorist if you fail to believe the official story that it was likely red-painted utensils that led to a spike in documented radiation levels along the California coast (yes, the government actually offered this up as an official answer). And you must absolutely be a conspiracy theorist if you have the gall to actually look back to late 2011, when researchers presented their findings regarding the impending wave of Fukushima radiation that was already being recorded within the country.

Information going back to 2011 shows that scientists were already concerned about an increase in radiation levels and the overall fallout from the dilapidated Fukushima plant. We can even go back to the declaration by scientist Marco Kaltofen of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute that radioactive 'hot particles' had been found at 2 out of the 3 radiation monitoring stations in Boston.

The very core of the Fukushima disaster timeline that has been regurgitated by the mainstream media and government agencies alike was almost exclusively based on information provided by plant operator TEPCO — a company that is now on record as having lied to the population of the world in a major way. And there were no signs they would ever tell the truth unless forced to. It wasn't until an independent investigation revealed the actual levels of radiation released from the plant (around 2 1/2 times more than TEPCO would even admit) that TEPCO was forced to go on record and state that the radiation levels they released were indeed much lower than reality.

However, the independent investigation into Fukushima radiation levels not only exposed the lies by TEPCO regarding the radiation explosion at the plant, but it also found that around 78% of the caesium-137 released by the plant was funneling into the Pacific Ocean. The plant now states that the three reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released about 900,000 Tera-becquerels of radioactive substances. About 20% fell on Japanese land, 2% somewhere on land outside the country, and a whopping 78% remainder is believed to have entered the Pacific Ocean.

At the very least, the Japanese and United States governments should be preparing citizens for what scientists said could last 'thousands of years': the Fukushima nightmare. And that begins with admitting that the threat is real. Because unless we really prepare ourselves and work together as a planet to truly fix the Fukushima plant and ensure that the 1,4000+ rods do not cause yet another massive meltdown (as experts say they likely will during transfer), we really will be facing a radioactive nightmare of epic proportions.

While the spread of radiation to the West Coast of North America was casually acknowledged, the early press reports (AP and Reuters) "quoting diplomatic sources" stated that only "tiny amounts of radioactive particles have arrived in California but do not pose a threat to human health."

Check Below links for more info:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 23, 2015, 11:07:32 pm
Nine workers have been killed over the past four years in circumstances that strongly suggest hydrocarbon poisoning as the likely cause of death, and yet so far, only one of the fatalities has been solely attributed to hydrocarbon vapor inhalation.

As far as the oil & gas industry’s position on the dangers of manual tank gauging is concerned, there appear to be two possibilities: either they did not realize that opening a hatch on top of an oil tank and looking inside might expose workers to dangerous fumes, or they did realize this and chose not to do anything about it. Here’s WSJ:

The deaths of Trent Vigus and at least nine other oil-field workers over the past five years had haunting similarities. Each worker was doing a job that involved climbing on top of a catwalk strung between rows of storage tanks and opening a hatch.

There were no known witnesses to any of the men’s deaths. Their bodies were all found lying on top of or near the tanks. Medical examiners generally attributed the workers’ deaths primarily or entirely to natural causes, often heart failure…

According to some industry-safety and government officials. The industry has been ignoring warning signs for years and has been resistant to implementing some steps that would reduce or eliminate the risk to workers.

“I was trying to get workers into respirators and all kinds of things and running an uphill battle,” said a former industrial hygienist for a large oil company who said he had noticed dangerously high hydrocarbon levels in some of his testing as far back as 2009. “They say, ‘Everyone does it this way.’ But that doesn’t make it any less right or wrong.”

Some industry officials said that companies hadn’t realized there might be a problem  ::) until the pattern of deaths began to emerge, but they now acknowledge the situation needs to be studied further

Full article by Tyler Durden:

Why Are Oil & Gas Workers Mysteriously Dying Across America ? (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2015, 04:51:53 pm
14-Year-Old ‘Kid Warrior’ Rallies Youth Around the World to Protect the Planet  (

Vanessa Black | April 22, 2015 3:55 pm

Xiuhtezcatl Martinez   ( not your average teen.

At the rebellious age of 14, he has given a Ted Talk and spoken twice at major United Nation’s forums. President Obama awarded him the Youth Change Maker of the Year Award and he is a member of the Presidential Youth Council to advise the president on youth views and policy.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 01, 2015, 02:54:58 pm
Mapping the Dangers of Fracking

Briana Kerensky, Food & Water Watch | May 1, 2015 9:10 am

It feels like spring only just arrived, but as of tomorrow we’re less than a month away from the official start of summer: Memorial Day. National parks and forests across the country will welcome millions of hikers, campers, photographers “picnic-ers,” and others this summer: people looking to leave home for a while and enjoy America’s natural beauty.

But oil and gas corporations want to visit U.S. public lands for a very different reason: to profit off their oil and gas reserves via fracking. (

Did you know that about 20 percent of U.S. oil and gas reserves and resources are beneath federal public lands? Some of these public lands are next to our most beautiful national parks, including Glacier National Park in Montana, or national forests like George Washington and Jefferson National Forests in Virginia and Shawnee National Forest in Illinois, to name a few.

But it can be hard to visualize the scope of the danger that fracking poses to our public lands. That’s why Food & Water Watch created a map to help illustrate the vast span of public lands across America, and illuminate where Big Oil and Gas corporations aim to drill and frack through it.


The yellow areas are U.S. federal lands. The red areas in the map are where—given inconsistent data—there are oil and gas deposits. Lands in red are where there’s already been a wave of drilling and fracking for oil and gas, or where companies envision fracking before long. The overlapping orange areas are public lands that are either being fracked now, or could be soon. Check out the blue pins to learn about specific public lands and how they’re at risk from fracking.

Fracking on public lands such as these is dangerous on many levels:

it introduces toxic chemicals to water;  (

it disrupts the habitats of millions of animals, including endangered species;  (

it poses serious risks to human health, such as breast cancer;  (

and it spurs on climate change. (

The production of oil and natural gas in 2013 from federal public lands led to more than 292 million tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, or about what 61 million cars emit in a year.

No amount of regulation will protect our public lands, health, drinking water and climate from the impacts of fracking. About 90 percent of federally managed lands are available for oil and gas leasing, while only 10 percent are reserved for conservation, recreation, wildlife and cultural heritage.

If we want to preserve our nation’s natural heritage for future generations, we must act. The Protect Our Public Lands Act was recently introduced to Congress, and is the strongest piece of federal legislation against fracking to date. No amount of regulation will protect our public lands or communities from the impacts of this dangerous practice.

Agelbert NOTE: Messaqe to null hypothesis (i.e. gee, there is "insufficient scientific evidence" that fracking is deleterious to human health.  ( MKing and agnotologist friends:


Agnotology: Part one of six parts  (
Agnotology: Part two of six parts  (
Agnotology: Part three of six parts  (
Agnotology: Part four of six parts  (
Agnotology: Part five of six parts  (
Agnotology: Part six of six parts  (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2015, 02:01:38 pm
ReThink Energy: ‘We Will Ensure Florida Keeps Fracking Out of Our State’  (

Kim Ross, ReThink Energy Florida | May 1, 2015 1:21 pm

In 2013, ReThink Energy Florida was one of the few organizations fighting pro-fracking bills in the Florida Legislature in reaction to public attention on drilling near the Everglades. The bills failed to garner enough votes to make it into law. Each year since, state legislators have attempted to pass similar meaningless, pro-industry regulations. Each year, they have failed. But 2015 will mark the year that the tide turned in the battle to keep fracking out of Florida.

We will keep moving to ensure Florida does the right thing and keeps fracking out of our state forever. Photo credit: G. Fardner / U.S. National Park Service

We were among the Floridians shocked in 2014 upon learning that, while we’d been going to public hearings on one well permit, another had been secretly and illegally fracked. With this illegal procedure, a more dangerous form of unconventional drilling called “acid fracking” was introduced to the Everglades. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a cease and desist, but the oil company continued in defiance. DEP fined the company for $25,000—an amount that seemed like couch-change to the public.

As ReThink Energy Florida and its allies began to build public awareness, and leaders began to scrutinize the process, DEP got firmer with the company. Eventually, after the company failed to meet several simple demands, DEP revoked their permits.

By 2015’s legislative session, ReThink Energy Florida was one of the organizations in the Florida Anti-Fracking Coalition, which called for a ban on fracking in Florida. This coalition consisted of health and environmental groups, including Stonecrab Alliance, Food & Water Watch, Physicians for Social Responsibility of Florida, Florida Clean Water Network, Our Santa Fe Rivers, Environmental Caucus of Florida, Florida Progressives, and many other grassroots activists and organizations.

Due at least in part to its work educating and engaging the public, bans on fracking were filed in the Florida Legislature by Senators Soto and Bullard, and Rep. Jenne. Unfortunately, other legislators filed fracking regulation bills again, along with trade secrets exemption bills, which required a 2/3 majority in each chamber of the Legislature to pass. While these other legislators claimed to have worked with DEP, industry, and environmental groups, the few environmental groups that they invited to the table eventually withdrew their support because the legislators refused to amend the bills to meet their bottom-line requirements.

While the bans sat unmoving, the regulatory bills began moving quickly through committees. The coalition drove phone calls, emails, press events and public awareness across the state. The primary focus was that we need to ban, not regulate, fracking. The coalition spoke to many of the issues with the bills: they would have kept cities and counties from banning fracking and they were full of loopholes, including trade secret exemption rules written by and for industry. The public testified about these bills in committee, and reminded the legislators that a ban was another option. We knew we were getting better at speaking as a unified body when the opposition attempted to address our points. Still, we knew it was an uphill battle, as we were not only arguing against industry, but also against DEP.

We did hope we could kill the trade secrets exemption bill on the Senate side, and keep it off the Governor’s desk. Our conversations with Senators indicated that even if they felt the fracking regulation bill could be fixed, they didn’t see the need for the trade secrets exemption bill.

The tide began to turn the penultimate week of session, as several leaders in the Senate expressed grave concern about the bills. These leaders told the sponsor they were disappointed in the few changes they’d seen so far.

The last week of session, the bills were scheduled for final debate on both floors. The House voted for the fracking regulatory bills but tabled the trade secrets exemption bill, perhaps because they were unsure it would have the votes to pass in the Senate.

No one expected what happened next, except maybe comedians who enjoy making fun of Florida politics. Because of disagreement between the Republican-led House and Republican-led Senate over Obamacare, the Speaker of the House ended session three days early, but without passing a budget—the one thing that they are constitutionally required to do. The move was a jab at the leadership in the Senate, and left several bills, good and bad, in limbo.

The House had passed the faux regulatory bills on Monday before they went home. While we were overjoyed that the House had not passed the trade secrets bill, rendering it dead on the table, we were worried that the regulatory bill could still pass. It was clear the House had thrown the Senate into chaos right as a final debate on the fracking regulatory bill came up in a hearing. As a result, the bill was “temporarily postponed” while its sponsor determined how to proceed.

The Senate had three options: 1) let the bad regulatory bill die a natural and well-deserved death; 2) amend the bill and send it back to the House—who was not present to hear the amended bill, thereby killing it; or 3) Pass the bill as passed in the House, which would send it on to the Governor.

In these final days of the Senate, very few people still believed the bill should pass as written; seemingly only the head of the Florida Petroleum Council still supported it. Most importantly, several leaders in the legislature had expressed concern about the bill and had worked to come up with “fixes.” However, because the House had ended their session, any amendments would render the bills dead.

Wednesday, after ReThink Energy Florida and its partners had burned the phone lines, held press conferences and written even more op-eds (such as this one from Our Santa Fe River), the Senate bill’s sponsor acknowledged that the bill would not pass.

Our work is not done. Next week, we will begin doubling down on our efforts to create the necessary groundswell for a permanent ban on fracking. But today, we celebrate a victory in the end of this legislative session: the birth of a new movement that calls on leaders to take our concerns about Florida’s Energy Policy and Environment into account. We will keep moving to ensure Florida does the right thing and keeps fracking out of our state forever.

agelbert  • 7 minutes ago   

Any port in the profit over planet suicidal, dystopic storm. Good luck to you and may God Damn the Florida Petroleum Council.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2015, 05:18:28 pm
The Everglades are threatened.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 07, 2015, 10:45:44 pm
NASA’s Time Lapse Video Shows Humanity’s Impact on the Earth

Lorraine Chow | May 7, 2015

Associated article at link:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2015, 09:18:55 pm
This an article from January/ is 5 years since it was written....has anything changed, or are we still consuming ourselves into total collapse?

( (

Not really. There is more awareness and acceptance that we are heading for the bottleneck meat grinder but the will of governments, owned by dirty energy greedballs, to actually do anything about that is not there.   (

The progress has been marginal. The inertia of the profit over planet insanity is still holding sway.  :(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 15, 2015, 02:32:24 pm

Although there will always be powerful voices who seeks to justify exploitative practices as a means of economic advancement, there must also be leaders who stand against this destruction and stand for life affirming economic development that will protect that which cannot be replaced,” Rev. Kelvin Sauls, Pastor of Holman United Methodist Church, said in a letter to Brown. “We ask you to rise to this moral challenge, probably the most significant of your career and one that you have long been preparing for, and declare a moratorium on fracking and other extreme methods of well stimulation and unconventional oil and gas extraction in California.”

At The Church by the Side of the Road, members of Californians Against Fracking, faith leaders and community members screened the premiere of Faith Against Fracking and opened up a broad dialogue on the important role of religious groups in taking environmental action against fracking.

This is what is unethical—the things that we’re doing for money that we know is wrong,” said Rev. Ambrose Carroll, a senior pastor at the church. “The bible says treat others as you would want to be treated. So, why would you allow something to happen on one side of town that you wouldn’t allow to happen in your own backyard? If it’s not good for you, then of course it’s not good for others.”
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 15, 2015, 11:03:55 pm
Victory! University of Washington Divests from Coal  ;D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 01:22:59 am
Fracking in Colorado is producing giant methane plume.  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 01:30:19 am
Grave news.  :(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 17, 2015, 11:11:05 pm
“The Starship vs. Spaceship Earth”

“What the secular faith of Dysonism offers,” Brower writes” is, first, a hypertrophied version of the technological fix, and second, the fantasy that, should the fix fail, we have someplace else to go.” -

Dyson is not doing science, but he is deluding others under the guise of science.

Agelbert NOTE: Great and revealing article about how incredibly closed minded and willfully ignorant an otherwise brilliant scientist can be.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 21, 2015, 09:53:34 pm
The TRUTH about Fracking.   (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on May 28, 2015, 02:42:17 pm
EPA’s new rules on river pollution outrage the usual suspects  (   (  (

By Nathanael Johnson  on 27 May 2015   

The Environmental Protection Agency Wednesday released a long-awaited and long-debated rule for interpreting the Clean Water Act. The EPA has regulated rivers since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, but Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 reduced the scope of government authority to protect water against pollution. Since that time, it has been unclear what the government is allowed to regulate. A New York Times article in 2010 suggested that this rollback was allowing pollution that previously would have been illegal:

“This is a huge deal,” James M. Tierney, the New York State assistant commissioner for water resources, said of the new constraints. “There are whole watersheds that feed into New York’s drinking water supply that are, as of now, unprotected”…

“Cases now are lost because the company is discharging into a stream that flows into a river, rather than the river itself,” said David M. Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan who led the environmental crimes section of the Justice Department during the last administration.

The new EPA rule doesn’t give the agency as much authority as it previously wielded under the Clean Water Act. But it says the EPA will regulate tributaries of navigable rivers, wetlands, and a few other environmentally important bodies of water, like prairie potholes and vernal pools in California.

If you haven’t been following this, you may wonder why it’s controversial. That’s a fair question. As Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) pointed out in an op-ed, these regulations used to seem like common sense to both Republicans and Democrats:

The draft rule relies on more than 1,200 pieces of peer-reviewed scientific literature that evaluate the critical functions that various types of water bodies perform. It restores protections that the administrations of presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush championed.

Still, the EPA’s critics were outraged by the rule. House Speaker John Boehner called it “a raw and tyrannical power grab.”

That rhetoric provides a clue as to why this is an issue. Some people are convinced that the whole thing is a sneaky way of socializing their private land: First, the government makes you get a permit to pee in your own puddle, and before you know it, Obama is body-surfing in your irrigation ditch.

Now, there’s a legitimate argument from level-headed farmers that things would work more smoothly (and water quality wouldn’t suffer) with fewer rules and less regulation. But the paranoia that drives much of the opposition to this rule is positively Jade Helm level.

The EPA held more than 400 meetings and reviewed over a million comments before making this rule. Most of those comments supported the move. The rule specifically excludes various smaller bodies of water from regulation, including ditches that carry water to fields, artificial ponds, rice paddies, and erosion gullies. Nonetheless, Republicans in Congress are already organizing to draft a bill to override the rule.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 03, 2015, 03:55:15 pm
This Household Chemical Linked to ADHD in Children and Teens  :(  :P

Learn about Pyrethroids

A commonly used household pesticide has been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and young teens.

Pyrethroids, a new type of pesticide, were introduced as a supposedly safer alternative to organophosphates.

Organophosphates were banned for residential use in the US 15 years ago.

But the new research may question the safety of their replacement.

Full article at link:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2015, 01:03:58 pm

06/03/2015 04:49 PM   

Fast-Track Vote Down to the Wire, Any Day Now News

by Rona Fried 

After the Senate passed Fast-Track legislation, the House is next and the vote could come any day now. About a dozen Democrats hang in the balance and I'm not sure how many Republicans - but the vote will be close.

 As a reminder, the US is the only country in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that is pushing for fast-track - which gives Congress an up or down vote on the completed deal, with no ability to amend it

 This week, a panel of United Nations experts expressed grave doubts these secret international "trade" agreements pose to human rights.

"Our concerns relate to the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, science and culture, improved labor standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement," they write. That about covers it, doesn't it?

In particular, they point to the "investor-state dispute settlement" system, where corporations can sue local, state or federal governments - at a corporate tribunal, not our justice system - for regulations that impede their profits.

 Intrusive investor state awards have a "chilling effect when States are penalized for adopting regulations, for example to protect the environment, food security, access to generic and essential medicines, or raising the minimum wage."

Wikileaks' $100,000 Reward

This week, WikiLeaks launched a crowd-sourcing campaign to raise $100,000 for "America's Most Wanted Secret: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)."

WikiLeaks published three leaked chapters and they want the other 26. 

Read our article, ( WikiLeaks Reveals Environment Chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal.  (

"The problem is that these deals are put together using a rigged negotiating process. Our trade negotiators tend to come out of giant, multinational corporations - particularly from Wall Street - and tend to return to them. The 600 "advisors" on the TPP are dominated by corporate representatives. Not only does this set up a corporate-favoring (therefore labor-/environmentalist-hating) mindset within the agency, it also creates an understanding that participants should "play ball" and not make waves against corporate interests if they want to obtain a lucrative corporate position after leaving government. The inevitable result is agreements that rig the game in favor of the interests of the giant, multinational corporations and their investors over the interests of the rest of us - and our government," explains Dave Johnson at Campaign for America's Future.

"There is a reason that Wall Street, giant multinational corporations, Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable,  Republican Party leadership and all the other anti-worker lobbying representatives of giant corporations and billionaires are for TPP - and all labor unions, progressives, Democrats (except a few who hope to be lobbyists later), citizen groups, consumer groups, internet freedom, health groups, LGBT groups, food-safety groups, environmental groups and so many others oppose it," he says.

"TPP would follow in the footsteps of other disastrous trade pacts. NAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and other trade deals are a major reason why some 60,000 American factories closed since 2001 as manufacturers shifted jobs to low-wage nations overseas and 4.7 million American jobs disappeared," says Senator Bernie Sanders who is running for President.

Read our article, Progressive Caucus Offers Alternative to Fast-Track Trade Deals.

Examples of Investor (  State Dispute

Stop calling TPP a trade agreement. It is a corporate/investor rights agreement, Johnson says.

Where Your Meat Comes From: Last month, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against US "country of origin labels" (COOL) on meat under NAFTA.

 Mexico and Canada sued the US government on behalf of their meat industries, arguing that labeling is too costly, creates logistical problems, and is protectionist. US meatpackers are also against labels, but they have lost in our courts each time they tried. WTO's ruling is final and can't be appealed. So much for the US judiciary system.

COOL passed in the US Congress as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. It requires that all meat sold in supermarkets be labeled with where the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered. It has overwhelming support of the American public and allows the USDA to quickly determine the source of adulterated meat and food borne illnesses.

TPP's investor-state provision goes even further - corporations can also sue countries.   (

Mining in El Salvador: OceanaGold, a Canadian gold miner, is suing the country under CAFTA for not allowing it to mine there.   ( El Salvador's water is mostly polluted and doesn't want more mines for social and environmental reasons. The company wants compensation equivalent to 5% of El Salvador's GDP and has already spent over $13 million on legal fees.

Ecuador terminates Occidental Oil's contract and is fined $2.3 billion!  >:(

Vattenfall, a Sweden-based utility that operates two nuclear plants
in Germany is suing for $4.7 billion  >:( because the country is shutting all nuclear plants.

"Arbitrators are paid $600-700 an hour, giving them little incentive to dismiss cases; and the secretive nature of the arbitration process and the lack of any requirement to consider precedent gives wide scope for creative judgments," says The Economist.

Hundreds of tech companies sent a letter to Congress expressing concerns that it threatens fair use, may lead to more costly forms of online copyright enforcement, criminalize whistleblowing and investigative journalism.

Read, Top Reasons to Oppose Fast Tracking the TPP. ( 

Call Your Representative!

Make your views known to your representative, and let your friends and family know. You can follow the action on Twitter at #stopfasttrack and use this service to easily call your rep:

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 06, 2015, 07:47:20 pm
Ray Kemble of Dimock, Pennsylvania, holds a jug of discolored water from his well, contaminated by nearby fracking operations while standing outside of the U.S. EPA building in Washington, DC. Photo credit: Food & Water Watch

Don’t Be Fooled by Yesterday’s Headlines, EPA Finds Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water

Wenonah Hauter | June 5, 2015 1:45 pm


Don’t be fooled. Headlines in the New York Times and other news media about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited study on the impacts of fracking on drinking water are another tragic case of not looking beyond the timid agency’s spin. Despite the lack of new substantive data and the limited scope of the study, the EPA did find instances of water contamination and outlined the areas where this could happen in the fracking process.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 07, 2015, 12:32:15 am
Drone Captures Remarkable Footage Of A Whale Family: It Makes You Think About What We’ve Done

June 6, 2015 by Arjun Walia.

For the first time ever, a mother grey whale has been caught on camera with two calves, thanks to the help of drone technology. Experts are unsure if the second calf was adopted by the mother, which would be extremely unlikely, or if the two calves are twins, which would be a similarly rare occurrence. There are no other known cases of a grey whale with two calves at once. This footage comes from Captain Dave’s Dolphin & Whale Safari, based out of Dana Point, California.

It’s beautiful footage of these majestic creatures. Unfortunately, human activity is literally laying waste to their home.

For example, the nuclear power plant disaster at Fukushima resulted in 300 to possibly over 450 tons of contaminated water containing radioactive iodine, cesium, and strontium-89 and 90 being flooded into the Pacific Ocean every single day. Contaminated water is still leaking and still poses a major problem.

A second example would be the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico, which was so large that it could not be concealed from the public. There are plenty of smaller-scale oil spills occurring which we don’t hear about.

A third example would be the fact that whales have been showing up dead on multiple beaches, bringing forth a very powerful message in the form of stomachs full of plastic. This has happened multiple times, and you can read more about it here.

North East of Hawaii, the ocean currents form a giant whirlpool of debris from around the Pacific called the North Pacific Gyre. It’s one of the largest ecosystems on Earth, comprising millions of square kilometres. Today, it’s better known as “The Great Garbage Patch,” an area the size of Queensland, Australia with approximately one million tonnes of plastic collecting in the ocean. You can read more about that here.

These are just a few examples of the impact human activity is having on the oceans. It’s important that we recognize the fact that it’s time to change our ways here and do things differently. Our entire “system” set up here is one that is clearly not working. We can have a planet where all life can thrive, where our activity does not destroy it. We can

If you are asking yourself “how” then I do not know what to tell you, there are thousands of different ways! If you truly want to know, all it takes is a little research. The solutions are out there. Back in 2013, we reported on the story of 19 year old Boyan Slat, who had developed a device with the capacity to remove 7,250,000 tonnes of plastic and garbage from the world’s oceans in just 5 years. Boyan, now 20, and CEO of The Ocean Cleanup Project, has just announced that his project will come into fruition by 2016.

Technology isn’t the problem. From new ways of generating energy and growing food, to advancements in medicine, we have the ability to change things right now, at this very moment. What we need is a shift in the way we think about the world. We need a shift in the way we see ourselves and our relationship with, not only the other life on this planet, but the planet itself.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  – Albert Einstein
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 07, 2015, 12:47:22 am
A whale is freed from a death trap by decent humans and the whale shows it's gratitude to these good hearted humans that showed interspecies empathy by helping a fellow earthling in distress.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 08, 2015, 02:13:34 pm
Fracking Does Cause ‘Widespread, Systemic’ Contamination of American’s Drinking Water

Josh Fox and Lee Ziesche | June 5, 2015 3:52 pm

In a draft report five years in the making, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that fracking does indeed contaminate drinking water, a fact the oil and gas industry has vehemently denied.

But instead of dismantling the industry’s “not one single case of groundwater contamination caused by fracking” refrain, the EPA decided to go with the misleading headline “there is no evidence fracking has led
 to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.” (

It’s a puzzling conclusion since their study was conspicuously narrow (they did no new case studies, dropped three marquee cases that proved water contamination and dropped all air quality studies from the report).  (

Our Map of the Week shows 313 cases where families reported water contamination due to drilling in just six counties in North Eastern, Pennsylvania. Seems pretty widespread to me for a fracking and drilling campaign that’s still in its infancy.  ( So far there’s been around 9,000 wells drilled in Pennsylvania. One report showed the potential for 200,000 – 600,000 fracked wells in the state.

Our Map of the Week confirms widespread, systemic contamination of U.S. regulatory bodies by the oil and gas industry (and that water contamination due to fracking is widespread too!) Map credit: BH/NY Friends of Clean Air and Water CC-BY-NC, All other rights reserved

If the EPA is looking for proof of “widespread” contamination before declaring fracking unsafe, they may not have to wait long. The industry’s own data shows that 5 percent of fracking wells leak upon drilling and that number only grows over time.

What the EPA presented to the public yesterday was PR, not science and proof of the widespread, systemic contamination of our regulatory bodies by the oil and gas industry.

This isn’t the first time the EPA has released a report burying the science with a misleading headline
that supports the Obama Administration’s pro-fracking policies rather than reveal the true dangers of fracking. It’s a disturbing trend we reported on extensively in GASLAND Part II with cases in Dimock, Pennsylvania; Parker County, Texas; and Pavilion, Wyoming.

In Dimock, Parker Country and Pavilion the EPA suddenly dropped water contamination cases when the science proved that fracking was the cause, going as far as slapping a press release claiming Dimock’s water was safe on a report that proved fracking had contaminated the water.

The EPA did this, conveniently, around the same time that President Obama was touting fracking as part of his All-of-the-Above energy policy on the campaign trail. (   (

And President Obama has not backed off in his support for natural gas despite mounting evidence that fracking is a climate change disaster. His administration is opening up huge swaths of BLM land for drilling and has even gone so far as to allow fracking offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

He’s not the only one. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton sold fracking to the rest of the world   ( and has said nothing to indicate she will do any differently as President, despite claiming that addressing climate change is a pillar of her campaign.  ;)

If President Obama and Hillary Clinton want to know what a fracking legacy looks like they should take a look at the pictures coming from Little Rock, Arkansas where a fracked-gas pipeline ruptured in the Arkansas River within view of Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library.


Millions of Americans know that fracking contaminates ground water and for the EPA to report any differently only proves that the greatest contamination from the industry comes from its influence and ownership of our government.

It’s clear there is no action coming from our politicians to protect our public health and safety from fracking. They will stick with the industry till all our water is contaminated, our air polluted and climate change has made our planet unlivable. (

It’s up to us to get the truth out.   (  ( ( (

If you want to educate your community on the dangers of fracking and the incredible influence of the industry on our government, email us to host a screening of GASLAND Part II.

William Huston   (

I am extremely humbled and grateful to Josh and EcoWatch for featuring my map. I am happy to explain the methodology I used and details about the dataset. Inquiries:

I cried when I first made this map. It was so disturbing to me. Even my friends who live on the front lines (like Vera Scroggins and Craig Stevens) had no idea how bad things were, before we saw this picture. My family is from Bradford County. The water there was so pure. A sacred place has been defiled. And the industry and Obama's EPA are in denial. I personally know dozens of impacted people living in this area, and many are suffering daily.  (

So thank you Josh and Stephanie ( for helping get the word out. ( (

JohnR > William Huston 

EcoWatch comments section is over run with pro fracking Trolls and AGW denier Trolls, thanks for taking a stand.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 14, 2015, 05:57:37 pm
No Bees, No Food  (

Millions of bees are dying off, with alarming consequences for our environment and our food supply. We rely on bees to pollinate everything from almonds to strawberries to the hay used to feed dairy cows. What happens if the bees disappear? It’s simple: No bees, no food.

Let's give bees a chance

In recent years, beekeepers report they’re losing on average 30% of all honeybee colonies each winter — twice the loss considered economically tolerable.

6,000 times more toxic than DDT

Scientists point to several causes behind the problem, including global warming, habitat loss, parasites and a class of bee-killing insecticides known as neonicotinoids (or neonics).

When seeds are treated with neonics, the chemicals work their way into the pollen and nectar of the plants — which, of course, is bad news for bees and other pollinators. Worse, for the bees and for us, neonics are about 6,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT.

Just one example: After a nearby farm planted corn seeds coated with neonics in 2013, a farmer named Dave Schuit lost 37 million of his bees. “Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” said Schuit.

Full article at link: (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 14, 2015, 06:30:39 pm
Up Up in the Sky by Kate M. Willens, Copyright KM Willens

A protest song to awaken the world to the horrible spraying of toxic aerosols known by many as “chemtrails” into our skies. This is the first track of what will be a fuller piece, featuring Kate Magdalena Willens on vocals and guitar.

Agelbert NOTE: A hauntingly beautiful voice  ( singing sadly about how the government lies and denies.

The Empathy Deficit Disorder corporate owned government lies and denies about all other industrial polluting activities too.   (

Please pass this on. It is a great way to spread the truth and wake people up.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 15, 2015, 07:23:21 pm

There Is No Word For "Disposable" In Native Languages

This is a video featuring some of the most profound, eloquent and enlightened words we have to share here at Nextworldtv.

This is Julia Butterfly Hill  (, an American activist and environmentalist. She is best known for living in a 180-foot (55 m)-tall, roughly 1500-year-old California Redwood tree for 738 days between December 10, 1997 and December 18, 1999.

I feel her words on "disposability consciousness" in this video are epic and truly enlightened. What richness, what truth, what poetry she speaks here. I will quote a few sentences, and please enjoy the rest of her wisdom in this incredible video. "I know in my heart that as long as trashing the planet and trashing each other, a healthy, holistic and healed world is not possible.

We can not have peace ON the earth unless we also have peace WITH the earth. Our disposability consciousness is a weapon of mass destruction." She is referring to how we mindlessly buy a cup of coffee -- or anything-- in disposable packaging. And where is "away" when we throw it away? It's all right here, isn't it? What a monumental disconnect we have come to accept!

She speaks of reclaiming every step of life as a step toward consciousness, and a step toward healing! --Bibi Farber

This video was produced by - See more at:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 17, 2015, 10:27:39 pm
Fundraising success for opponents of the fracked gas pipeline   (

Press Release Jun. 16 2015
Just Power
 Rebecca Foster

Addison and Chittenden Counties, Vt – A grassroots group opposing the fracked gas pipeline has met its goal to establish a legal fund and hire a lawyer to represent landowners Nate and Jane Palmer in front of the Public Service Board (PSB) next week. The Palmers and other opponents of the project face off with Vermont Gas Systems (VGS) ( on June 22-23 at the technical hearings to reopen the permit for Phase I of the expansion project.

With members from all walks of life and through partnerships with organizations around the state, Just Power has had an impact on the pipeline debate disproportionate to the group’s size. For nearly three years volunteers have scoured VGS filings and statements as well as state agencies’ reviews of the project. “We’ve found mistakes in VGS’ numbers, misleading advertising about potential savings, and unjustifiable statements of ambitious goals,” said Diane Derrick of Hinesburg, “to say nothing of wild claims about benefits Vermont is supposed to get out of this project.”

For the second time in less than a year, the PSB will review the massive increase in project costs and consider whether to reopen VGS’ certificate of public good. With the project now at a price tag of over $154 million, current customers are expected to suffer essentially permanent rate hikes to pay for an expansion that will not benefit them. The average family in Chittenden and Franklin counties will pay around $8,000 above and beyond the gas service they receive over the next 25 years.   (

“It’s ludicrous that families may be forced to forego things they need like college tuition, care for an elderly parent, or unpaid parental leave to pay for something that is going to damage our state and our planet,”
said Andy Simon, a Burlington ratepayer. “VGS has been saying right along that up to 3,000 people in Addison County would benefit from lower heating bills, but that’s simply not true. Counting conversion costs, those families won’t save a dime for at least 14 years!”   (

Just Power members say it was inevitable that VGS and longtime supporter of the pipeline, the Department of Public Service (DPS), would have to come before the PSB again to explain themselves. “Many of the problems pro se intervenors in the Section 248 process have predicted have come to pass,” said Bobbie Carnwath from Cornwall. “But they haven’t had high-powered lawyers. Even the organizations with talented and experienced attorneys representing them don’t have the resources to counter the millions of dollars VGS is spending on its fleet of attorneys to bury the truth about this project. Just Power’s contributions have been pure elbow grease, time, and personal funds from our small group.”

The group decided that next week’s technical hearings, which could lead to the reopening of the case by the PSB, were so important that for the first time it went to its supporters asking for money to hire an attorney to represent the Palmers for the two days of technical hearings.

“A lawyer will help provide the respect that the Palmer legal team deserves!” wrote one donor on the group’s GoFundMe site. “The pipeline only serves large industrial customers while placing a large, very risky burden on existing and prospective ratepayers.” Another donor added:
“We can do better with energy conservation, renewables, and careful and creative planning of safe, non-fracked, and just solutions for the energy needs of all Vermonters. Let’s do that instead!” (
At the same time that Vermonters were chipping in donations from $5 to $1,000, VGS added yet another law firm to their team to promote the pipeline. Members of the coalition to stop the pipeline have vowed to continue their lean and spirited fight  ( no matter how much money VGS pours into defending its project.

Just Power urges Vermonters to attend the technical hearings as well as a ‘Truth-in and Vigil,” organized by a coalition of groups, during which participants will share facts as they emerge from the hearings. Opponents of the project want the PSB, DPS, and VGS to understand that the public is holding them accountable for considering whether the huge rate hikes required to cover VGS’ cost overruns are just and reasonable and whether, with three years of technological advancements in lower-cost and environmentally sound alternatives, this project is necessary at all.

Technical Hearings at the Public Service Board (112 State Street, Montpelier), 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. June 22 and June 23.

Truth-in and Vigil (State House Lawn, Montpelier), 4 p.m. June 22 to 8 a.m. June 23.

Agelbert NOTE: I am in Chittenden County, Vermont. I DO NOT use any natural gas whatsoever.  ;D We need a natural gas pipeline like a hole in the head (and the pocket book too!).
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 20, 2015, 07:55:55 pm

Exxon Mobil shareholders reject Vermont’s greenhouse gas resolution

Erin Mansfield Jun. 19 2015, 5:57 pm


“The overwhelming defeat of the resolution offered by Vermont Treasurer Pearce asking Exxon Mobil to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions proves that simply asking fossil fuel corporations to change their ways does not work,” Sen. Anthony Pollina, P/D-Washington, said in a statement.

The best strategy for Vermont is to divest from fossil fuel companies  (,” Pollina said. “It makes no sense for us to say we oppose climate change and then invest in the companies that are causing it.”
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 21, 2015, 11:34:39 pm
Chile declares environmental emergency over polluted Santiago air

Sunday, June 21, 2015  Reuters   

SANTIAGO (Reuters) – Chilean authorities declared an environmental emergency for the Santiago metropolitan region for Monday, forcing more than 900 industries to temporarily shut down and about 40 percent of the capital’s 1.7 million cars off the roads.

“We’re currently facing unusual conditions, with one of the driest Junes in over 40 years as well as really bad air circulation conditions in the Santiago valley in recent days, which boosts the concentration of contamination,” the Environment Ministry said in a statement.

The emergency, the first since 1999, will be in place for 24 hours and can be extended further if authorities deem conditions have not improved.

The Environment Ministry could not immediately provide Reuters with a list of what industries will be forced to suspend operations on Monday.

People in the Santiago area also were advised to avoid outdoor exercise, though such activity was not prohibited. Chile is in the midst of hosting the Copa America soccer tournament. The next game is scheduled for Wednesday.

A lack of rain and winds have allowed concentrations of small breathable particulate matter known as PM2.5 to build up, shrouding the city in smog. Particulate matter can enter the lungs and bloodstream and has been linked to heart disease, respiratory difficulties and environmental damage.

Cold temperatures this time of year prompt many residents to use wood-burning heaters, which vastly worsens air quality.

(Reporting by Anthony Esposito; Editing by Paul Simao) (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 25, 2015, 10:52:25 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 25, 2015, 11:00:34 pm
Fri Jun 19, 2015 at 09:50 AM EDT.

Cartoon: The Gospel of Denial

Before there was the Pope’s Encyclical on Climate Change, there was . . .

The Gospel of Denial.  From the Republican Disciples of Fossil Fuel.

In the First Book of Denial, Republicans walk on oil-slicked water— thanks to the miracle of oil viscosity!

Lo, then the Messiahs provide oil-soaked loaves and fishes to the impoverished masses . . . giving them combustible fuel so they may fire factories and prosper by their very bootstraps!

The most-denying Republicans demonstrate their power to raise the dead so that they may ascend to the heavens— and wrap the world in the loving embrace of Holy CO2.

The Disciples of Fossil Fuel know that among the twenty or so, there is a Judas!

Who will poll exceedingly low by the time the **** crows three times.

Verily, the Gospel teaches us that if we have undying faith in Denial and follow our Fossil Fuel Fathers (never mind the ninety-seven percent), we will be rewarded in this life . . . with eternal profits.

This, is the Word of the Oil.  ( (


VIDEO at link:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on June 27, 2015, 09:35:19 pm

Pope Francis Slams GMOs and Pesticides for Destroying the Earth’s ‘Complex Web of Ecosystems’

Lori Ann Burd, Center for Biological Diversity | June 26, 2015 11:04 am

Pope Francis’s encyclical didn’t just cover climate change, he also denounced pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, declaring
“the spread of these crops destroys the complex web of ecosystems, decreases diversity in production and affects the present and the future of regional economies.”

Biotech companies claim their products are key to solving hunger, but the Pope knows this isn’t true. No commercial GE crops are engineered for increased yield. Five of every six acres of GE crops are engineered for herbicide-tolerance, i.e. to survive being drenched with what would normally be a toxic dose of herbicide, usually Round-up, or glyphosate.

The Pope’s message couldn’t come at a better time. Pesticide use is at an all-time high.  >:( The U.S. Department of Agriculture says glyphosate use on corn and soy increased from 10 million pounds in 1996, the year Roundup Ready crops were introduced, to 204 million in 2013. The U.S. Geological Survey routinely finds glyphosate in our water. The Word Health Organization just declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen.

The Pope observed that pesticide use “creates a vicious circle in which the intervention of the human being to solve a problem often worsens the situation further.” He said, “many birds and insects die out as a result of toxic pesticides created by technology … [and this] actually causes the Earth we live in to become less rich and beautiful, more and more limited and gray …”

Pesticides have already made our Earth less rich and more gray by nearly wiping out monarch butterflies, which have declined by 90 percent, largely because increased glyphosate use has wiped out the monarch’s sole host plant, milkweed. Pesticides are a leading cause of our current pollinator collapse.

With one-third of the bites we eat requiring bee-pollination, many world leaders, including President Obama, are waking up to the need for action.

Like Pope Francis, I believe protecting the Earth is our moral imperative. With this encyclical, the Pope reminds us that our fates are intertwined with all species, and calls us to action.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 02, 2015, 11:02:58 pm
VI. The Common Destination of Goods

93. The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order”. The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.

94. Rural people must have access to means of technical education, credit, insurance, and markets”.

95. That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive".
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 10, 2015, 03:37:01 pm
Excellent comment!


James Maroney 

July 10, 2015 at 10:43 am

The farm crisis has its roots in the Industrial Revolution, in the opening of the Erie Canal, in Free Market Capitalism, in the federal water reclamation projects of the 1920s, in federal agricultural policies initiated in the 1930s, in the adoption of “advanced” technologies and in state land use policies. In a word, all these developments have contributed to the malaise affecting Vermont’s agricultural economy. To address these symptoms, the state has for two generations allocated roughly $60/80M/year to “save our farms” and “protect the lake,” chiefly by relieving farmers of property and sales taxes. Lower costs undoubtedly eased the pain but Vermont farmers cannot survive without an economic purpose, i.e., they cannot survive without making a profit.

Vermont’s dairy farmers did not devise the policies that brought them to the their present circumstances. Those who wished to survive learned long ago to convert taxpayer support to new capacity. They went to the bank to take on more debt, with which to consolidate their neighbors, with which to build larger barns, in which to house more cows and to acquire more land on which to grow more corn with petroleum-based fertilizers and herbicides.

Rush Limbaugh likes to remind his audience that when the government subsidizes something, we get more of it, but in this case, what we got more of was not farms, which arguably we wanted, but milk, which we did not. In spite of all the happy talk emanating from VAAF&M boasting that Vermont agriculture leads the nation in Farm to School, Farm to Plate and Farmers Markets, Vermont consumers spend 95% of their grocery money for food imported from out of state. Vermont’s largest agricultural sector is conventional dairy, which produces barely 1% of the national supply. Our farms produce no measurable portion of in state demand for meat, fish, grain, fruit or vegetables. If, in fact, Vermont farmers were to all go suddenly out of business tomorrow, no one would notice. We do not, in other words, farm to grow our food; we farm to sustain the illusion that we do, or, to put it bluntly, for appearances only. This means that Vermont allocates $60/80M/year, and with the new “clean water law” another $7.5M/year, for over production, low farm prices, farm attrition and lake pollution.

Vermont has adopted a policy to require that we get 90% of our energy from renewable sources by 2050, which is laudable. But conventional agriculture is the second largest source of global greenhouse gases, behind only electrical and heat generation and ahead of the entire transportation sector. Vermont’s energy policies turn a blind eye toward the profligacy of conventional dairy, planning instead to treat manure as a “renewable” feedstock for methane digesters. In other words, our new energy policy will ask the taxpayers to support the state’s largest contributor to water pollution in its push for sustainable energy. And since the most conspicuous results of Vermont’s agricultural policies are over production, low farm prices, farm attrition and lake pollution, it would appear to this writer that we are working at cross purposes.

Let us suppose that the state has adopted a policy that it is henceforth impermissible for any person or any industry to pollute the lake. All persons and all industries must henceforth adjust their production models to conform to this policy. The state has submitted a plan to the EPA by which it proposes to meet its TMDL, or to “clean up the lake” but the plan imposes virtually no material constraints upon conventional dairy. This means that the state esteems conventional dairy and its attendant environmental and social consequences above the attainment of its federally mandated water quality standards. Call your representative or senator if you think this makes no sense.

Glut of milk leads Vermont farms, co-ops to dump product

Erin Mansfield Jul. 9 2015, 6:31 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 10, 2015, 10:46:41 pm
Chris Hedges tells it like it IS!
Title: Re: Pollution - Get to Know Your H20
Post by: AGelbert on July 13, 2015, 07:42:03 pm

As citizens of the consumer-driven economy and culture of the United States of America, we face a plethora of choices throughout our every day lives.

We are consistently bombarded by images and ideas, the purposes of which are to influence our consumer behaviors and purchasing choices.

If we are to be active and educated in our buying patterns, there are countless matters that we can decide to minimize or opt out of completely.

This ILP (Independent Learning Project) is a creative project that focuses on drinking water, an area of human consumption that cannot be avoided and must not be taken for granted. This film intends to inspire people to make sustainable choices in regards to their daily drinking water habits while simultaneously fostering a deep concern for the long-term welfare of the earth’s fresh water supplies.


The water crisis that the planet is facing is a multi-faceted dilemma with numerous causes and even more solutions. It would not be fair or accurate to lay the blame in just one industry, such as bottled water. The United States uses 46% of its water for industrial purposes, 41% goes to agricultural needs, and a mere 13% for municipal and personal use (Sterling & Vintinner, 2008).

Snippet 2:

For at least the last 150,000 years, water has been the essential beverage for human, plant, and animal life as we know it. (Royte, 2008) Royte summarizes that: From the beginning of human time, access to sufficient clean water was the sine qua non for the establishment of a settlement. Lack of good water cramped expansion, and the search for new sources drew civilization’s map. Waterborne diseases could wipe out entire communities, so fresh springs were protected and fiercely defended.(Royte, 2008, p. 21)

Agelbert NOTE: IOW, polluted water from profit over planet due to industrialization and the extraction and use of fossil fuels is ANOTHER COST those Empathy Deficit Disordered Industries are visiting upon humanity.  >:(

Get to Know Your H20
An Independent Learning Project (ILP)
Presented by Andrea Cohen To Melissa Feldman

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education
with a concentration in humane education.

Cambridge College
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Home Water Testing

Discover Testing

Home Water Testing
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 15, 2015, 06:05:53 pm
Renewables Win Again: Landmark Settlement Prompts 200th Coal Plant to Retire

Michael Brune | July 15, 2015 2:49 pm

The skies are looking bluer. Today we announced the 200th coal plant to be retired since the Beyond Coal campaign began working with local communities to shut down old and outdated power plants. Since the current goal of the campaign is to retire half of the nation’s more than 500 coal plants, you can see that we’re making significant headway. That success is the result of a lot of hard work on the part of Sierra Club legal and conservation staff, the support of far-sighted donors and, last but not least, the thousands of ordinary people from every walk and stage of life who’ve worked to kick coal out of their own communities.

But although tallying coal plants retired is a useful gauge of progress, it doesn’t capture the full impact of this campaign. The story doesn’t end once the coal plants are gone. What happens next is at least as important.

Right away, of course, we see a better life for those whose air and water were affected by coal. After all, in 2010, when we were just getting started on coal-plant retirements, the Clean Air Task Force estimated that coal-fired power plants power plants contributed to 13,200 premature deaths, as well as 20,400 heart attacks and 217,600 asthma attacks. Saving those lives is one reason why the Clean Power Plan is so essential. But the benefits don’t stop there. Our responsibility to end the suffering caused by coal brings with it a singular opportunity to build something better to take its place.

Here’s one of my favorite examples. This fall, the last generator will spin down at the Widows Creek coal plant, which was built by the Tennessee Valley Authority during the Eisenhower administration. But the plant site won’t be idle for long. TVA and Google have announced that much of the site’s infrastructure will be repurposed into a new $600 million Google data center. And get this: The new data center will be 100 percent powered by renewable energy.

Google would not be building a data center powered by renewable energy on the Widow’s Peak site, though, if the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign had not helped negotiate the retirement of 18 TVA coal plants, including this one, way back in 2011. At the time, it was the largest coal-retirement agreement the nation had ever seen. We didn’t know that one of those retirements would one day be repurposed into a renewable-energy powered data center. But we did know that something better would take the place of that coal plant, just as it will for all the others.

Already this summer, for instance, two other power producers for Appalachia have announced that investing in wind and solar will be the most affordable way for them to replace power from polluting coal plants that will be retired as a result of the Clean Power Plan.

So while I’m stoked to see 200 coal plants retired—something no one would have predicted a decade ago—what’s really got me excited is the clean energy innovation and investment that’s springing up to take coal’s place. That’s the key to nothing but blue skies from now on.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2015, 02:32:27 pm
Carbon Tracker: $283 billion in LNG plants unneeded

More than a quarter-trillion dollars in planned liquefied natural gas projects will be unnecessary if the world is to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, according to a new analysis by the Carbon Tracker Initiative. The high cost of LNG projects makes those the projects more likely to be economically stranded than conventional gas. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed research sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund demonstrates that natural gas operations release 50 percent more methane—a potent greenhouse gas—than previously reported. By tracking levels of ethane, emitted by drilled gas but not landfills, the studies were able to pin over 70 percent of the methane on fossil fuels.

Dossier shows how oil firms sowed climate doubt

Top oil companies accepted the realities of climate science in their internal deliberations decades ago, even while outwardly denying the link between carbon pollution and global warming, according to a dossier released last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their refusal to concede that the use of their product endangers the public reminds Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) of the tobacco executives of yesteryear who denied the relationship between smoking and lung disease. Although most Republicans toe that line, one GOP senator’s embrace of clean energy as a way to solve the climate challenge has earned her hefty contributions from a North Carolina entrepreneur.

- See more at:[/size]

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 19, 2015, 03:57:41 pm
New Study Shows Glaring Differences Between GMO and Non-GMO Foods


David Keech (

I went looking and I'm fairly certain this is the El-Sayed Shaltout paper:
And this is the more recent Bøhn study:
They are both open access so you can read through them, which I did.
The corn/rat study only had 6 rats per group for a total of 36 rats. The comparisons were done by gender (as they must be), meaning only 3 rats were compared to 3 other rats in any comparison. This is far less than the Séralini study which was criticised for not having enough rats and eventually retracted. Most of the differences shown in the results table are marked as being not statistically significant. In those that are statistically significant, there is no pattern as to which pair of groups (control, non-GM and GM) will show the difference. This suggests that natural variation is greater than the effect size and the few cases of statistical significance they found are spurious.
While the soybean study cites many other papers on glyphosate and genetic modification, they don't cite any on studies of soybeans in the US. If they had bothered to look, they would have found this study: which shows that soybeans vary more greatly in fat, fibre and protein content depending on where they are grown and how they are processed than they do in this study.
The differences they found between GM and non-GM soybeans are less than the differences found between soybeans of the same type grown using the same methods, which makes of of their statistically significant results meaningless. The only significant remaining result in the paper is that glyphosate is detectable on soybeans sprayed with glyphosate, which is hardly a surprise.
Tellingly, both papers cite the now retracted Séralini study. It was retracted a month before the Bøhn study was submitted for review but it was notorious for a year before that.
Open-Access is a double-edged sword. While it's good to ease the dissemination of knowledge, the Author-pays model leads to the existence of publishers that will publish anything, regardless of its merit. Scientific Research Publishing is one of those:

I suspect both papers were written with two purposes in mind:

1. To seed sensational reporting of "nothing" results, such as this article.

2. Increasing citation counts of their buddies.

They certainly weren't trying to increase the sum of human knowledge.

agelbert reply to David Keech

I suspect the precautionary principle has left your mind and your vocabulary. That is, if that time tested principle of the scientific approach to innovation was ever part of your profit over planet mindset.

We have FOOD that got to be the way it is BECAUSE of many reasons that our science STILL DOES NOT UNDERSTAND!

WE are the product of that food. Fuc king around with the genome of life forms REQUIRES generational studies! We HAVE NOT done that with GMO. You know that and you DON'T CARE because you and people like you have shi t canned the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE in blatant disregard for the scientific method.

In a single tomato, there are THOUSANDS of enzymes that we STILL haven't discovered the biochemical pathways of. It is hubris, and extremely dangerous hubris at that, to believe we have the nutritional package of our food "all figured out".

Your analysis is criminally and irresponsibly flawed. I will trust nature's hundreds of thousands of years of engineering for LIFE before I will trust Monsanto's few decades of engineering for PROFIT!

Will  ( ( to agelbert

You said "In a single tomato, there are THOUSANDS of enzymes that we STILL haven't discovered the biochemical pathways of."

That is true.

The reason you are going to have trouble convincing a biologist that GMOs are inherently dangerous, or more dangerous than traditionally modified plants (through selective breeding) is the fact that every organism is made up of hundreds of thousands of different proteins, most of which we don't fully understand.
Think about this, when an organic farmer creates a new variety of a crop, what has happened is they have engineered the plant's DNA to express certain proteins differently that the original plant, so, out of the hundreds of thousand of proteins and unknown number of those proteins have been altered in mostly unknown way. It is always possible that some of those new, randomly generated proteins will have a negative effect on human health. Breeders don't really think about that because after thousands of years of randomly altering a plants DNA through selective breeding, people aren't showing up sick because of it. Most of our modern crops were created using this random process.

Contrast a traditionally altered plant with a plant that was altered in a lab and you will begin to see why it is so difficult to convince a biologist that GMOs (in general) are more dangerous than traditionally modified plants.

A GMO plant is a plant where, out of the hundreds of thousand of proteins, no more than a few protein in that plant have been engineered into the plant by people who already have a better understanding of those proteins than an organic farmer has of the dozens of new proteins that show up in a new traditionally bred variety of plant.

By the logic you are using every single new variety of seed (whether organic or GMO) should be put through the same gauntlet of tests that we put new drugs through.

Should we be concerned about ALL new varieties of crops? Should we make a label to signify "this is a new variety of plant, and contains proteins (chemicals) that have not been thoroughly studied."for every single new variety of plant?

agelbert reply to Will

The logic I am using is the precautionary principle. You want to dance around it by citing the complexity of cellular mechanisms in biota. You wish to ignore the facts about how what we eat is governed more by short term profits, pseudo scientific nutrition marketing hype and outright labeling falsehoods on behalf of corporate profit.

Let's stick to our history of degrading the nutrition in the human food supply by using mechanistic reductionist "scientific" stupidity like fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticides. The fertilizers themselves, though they produce larger plant products, actually have LESS nutrition due the FACT, as established by several U.N. studies, that essential trace minerals are lacking in them.

Plants need a LOT MORE than a chemical co cktail of  nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NPK), as any plant biologist not working for big Ag (or/and Monsanto) is keenly aware of.

The Empathy Deficit Disordered segment of our scientists (thank God there ARE scientists who actually do care about human nutrition) did ZERO to request a detailed study of the ACTUAL nutritive value of the "higher yield" crops produced by monoculture, high pesticide, high chemical fertilizer, high fossil fuel, soil degrading industrial "modern" farming.

And then it got worse. Those same scientists who couldn't seem to measure anything but the APPEARANCE and the WEIGHT of the crops, decided to GMO the life forms so they would produce their own pesticide/herbicide. Yes, in nature there are several plant varieties that use certain chemical defense mechanisms to compete for space and nutrition with other plants as well as produce certain toxins to ward off animals. But that is NOT what the Monsanto scientists were mimicking, regardless of what their feverish, profit orientated and empirical data challenged minds believed.

They were VERY SPECIFIC in the GMO product. They were so SPECIFIC, that they patented it. That flies totally in the face of your "logic" that claims that we can't test for "everything". Sorry, we not only CAN test a patented product, we MUST test it.

In fact, Monsanto DOES TEST THEIR GMOs THOROUGHLY. They just keep the results secret. Monsanto had no difficulty whatsoever testing hither and yon to find out if somebody is growing "their" (wind blown seeds and whatnot) product in order to sue a farmer. Monsanto had no difficulty extensively testing the short term effects on life forms that ate the GMO and deep sixing all the "negative" data about  carcinogenic effects. You don't want to go there. That is dissembling. Shame on you.

But, just for the hell of it, let us say that you have a valid point and we just "can't afford" (that's what it's all about to you, isn't it?) to spend money on testing all the many and varied genetic changes in plant products that we eat.

WHY then, do we ONLY have a small sample of the over 250 excellent and highly nutritious (for thousands of years!) vegetable and fruit products routinely eaten by humans reach our food markets?

Because of the "magic" of the marketplace? NOPE. It's because of an INTENSIVE STUDY by the food marketing industry to find the hardiest fruit and vegetables that could be harvested and shipped with low spoilage. This occurred mostly at the beginning of the 20th century. They didn't give a good God Damn how nutritious they were. They just looked for human eye appeal, general taste appeal and ease of shipping, PERIOD.

Advertising and hype took care of the rest. Then, AND ONLY THEN (not before the product was selected, as should have been the case in a sane world that relies on science for nutrition facts) were the scientists brought in to tell us all about the potassium in bananas, the vitamin C in oranges and so on. NEVER MIND that there are fruit MUCH HIGHER in potassium than bananas. NEVER MIND that there are fruit with FAR MORE vitamin C than oranges,

The end result of this poverty of plant products in our markets is monoculture plaguing the biosphere and conscience free scientists out to make said plant species into drought tolerant, pesticide resistant super plants with no care WHATSOEVER about the long term effects on human health and nutrition, never mind the deleterious effects of massive monoculture on the biosphere.

For example, virtually all HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is made from DENT CORN. Dent corn is NOT edible.

Did you know that? Did you know we grow more Dent corn than the "sweet" corn edible types by several orders of magnitude? Did you know that ALL Dent corn is GMOed corn? Did you know that it is impossible to rid HFCS of all the DNA from the plant it was derived from? Did you know that over two THOUSAND processed foods in our supermarkets have HFCS made from DENT CORN in them? Do you think that's A-fuc king-OKAY?

Yeah, you probably do. It's just fine to run an uncontrolled experiment on humans but it's "too hard" and "too complicated" to go back to the over 250 vegetable and fruit products found in nature that could enhance human health, nutrition and vitality.

I don't think you have absolutely any basis for your reasoning except short term profit. That is not science; that is conscience free greed.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 20, 2015, 02:30:46 pm
13 Arrested Blockading Crestwood Gate With Giant Replica of Pope Francis’ Encyclical

We Are Seneca Lake | July 20, 2015 12:50 pm

In an act of civil disobedience against gas storage in Seneca Lake salt caverns, 13 Finger Lakes residents, led by local members of the Ithaca Catholic Worker Movement, formed a human blockade shortly after sunrise this morning at the north entrance of Crestwood Midstream on Route 14.  (

Schuyler County deputies arrested the 13 people blockading Crestwood’s gate shortly after 9:30 a.m. today as they sang and read from the Pontifical document. Photo credit: We Are Seneca Lake

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 24, 2015, 07:04:42 pm
House passes bill to stop states from requiring GMO labels   (


Gov. Peter Shumlin, who signed Vermont’s GMO law, said the fight by lobbyists in Washington would galvanize consumers in favor of such mandates. His office called Vermont “ground zero” in the fight to institute GMO labeling.

“Monsanto and their corporate food allies have millions of dollars to dedicate to this fight, and today’s vote shows that they are quite skilled in using those vast resources to buy votes in Congress,” Shumlin said in a statement.

What the corporation couldn’t do, he said, was win the war.

“Millions of Americans are demanding the right to know what is in their food. And every time Monsanto fights tooth and nail to deny people that right, all they do is grow the ranks of ordinary Americans,” Shumlin said. “So this message is for Monsanto: Bring it on.” (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 25, 2015, 05:33:08 pm
Vandana Shiva: ‘We Must End Monsanto’s Colonization, It’s Enslavement of Farmers’ (  (

Dr. Vandana Shiva | July 25, 2015 10:39 am

Excellent and detailed article PLUS Monsanto Trolls get their asses handed to them in the comments section.  ;D

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 29, 2015, 06:01:21 pm
9 Ways Climate Change Is Making Us Sick

Yes, climate change is causing hurricanes, droughts and making sea level rise. But it’s also making us sick. Illnesses related to a warming planet are on the rise. Here are nine specific maladies related to climate change that could be affecting you or those you love and five ways for dealing with them.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 30, 2015, 06:43:32 pm
THURSDAY, July 30, 2015     


Maritime shipping produces some 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon War Room's Shipping Efficiency operation and its A to G GHG Emissions Rating are changing that. 

They noted that one ship — often worth tens of millions of dollars — is the equivalent of a power station on the water, with some of the world’s largest vessels emitting as much SOx, for example, as one million cars.  :o  :( Improve ships, and you could flip a significant amount of carbon and other emissions. (

If the maritime shipping industry were a country it would be among the top ten producers of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally.


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2015, 08:30:49 pm

How Much Salt Is Used to Treat Roads in the US?

Over 40 million tons of salt is used in the US each year in a variety of applications. Roughly 30% of that salt, or around 12 million tons, is used in the process of de-icing roads.

Salt can assist snow-fighters in clearing roads, as it lowers the temperature at which water can freeze. Using salt on roads was a method first adopted state-wide by New Hampshire in the early 1940s and rapidly spread throughout the United States over the 50s and 60s.

While using salt is currently the cheapest method of de-icing highways and is considered very effective at reducing accident rates, it does have drawbacks. Primarily, the introduction of so much salt into waterways each year can disrupt ecosystems and lead to contamination of drinking water supplies.  (

More about salt:

•The US produces the majority of the salt it consumes, through mining, solar evaporation and vacuum evaporation.

•The salt mine underneath Detroit was started in 1906 and is currently around 1160 feet deep, covering an area of over 1500 acres.  :o

•Ancient Roman legionnaires were paid in salt, and this is thought to be the origin of the word "salary".

SALT, like Carbon Dioxide, is THERE for a GOOD reason. We just need to know how much is too much.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 05, 2015, 06:49:53 pm
"Slide 8 Population growth, consumption and production patterns
It is important to highlight that it is not population levels per se that are the main cause of environmental degradation, but rather the associated consumption and production patterns. An important challenge in terms of environmental management is to find an appropriate balance in terms of inter and intra-generation equity: how to meet the basic needs of the existing population (such as food, shelter, health, education, and clothing), without unduly impacting on the capacity of future generations to meet their own needs.

As is highlighted in some of the following slides, finding this balance will require significant innovation in terms of our current production and consumption patterns."   

  Module 2: The business case for the Global Compact Environmental Principles (PDF - 305 KB)  Slide 9 The 20% of the world’s population living in the highest income countries are responsible for 86% of total private consumption compared with the poorest 20%, who account for only 1.3%.  (

Here's the Power Point slide show. You need power point software to view it.

 The Global Compact Environmental Principles Training Package - Complete set of training modules, case studies, sources for further information and PowerPoint slides related to each of the module sessions (M2 (Module 2) Session 1: has the slide you are looking for).    (")

Please pass it on.  Too many people are woefully misinformed. Consequently, they are scapegoating the poor masses of the planet, to the joy of the main polluters.    (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2015, 11:50:28 pm

The fossil fuel government has the fossil fuel (welfare queen) industry's back!  ( And OUR our wallet!    (

Did you know you could get billions of dollars from the US government to be in the oil business? Or the coal industry? Or fracking? In this satirical infomercial, famous American government grant guru Matthew Lesko shows how you too can get billions of dollars from the government to destroy the environment!

• Seriously, fossil fuel companies are racking in billions from subsidies. Learn more  here. (

• This is part of our comedy series, Climate change: too hot to handle (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 11, 2015, 06:49:50 pm
Divestment Goes Global (

The student movement to defund the fossil fuel industry graduates and goes to work. (

By Rosie Spinks
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2015, 06:45:04 pm
08/11/2015 03:46 PM     
New Zealand Waves Goodbye to Coal  ( News

New Zealand made a big announcement: the era of coal is about to end.

 In late 2018, the last two coal-fired power plants will shut down.

"Historically coal has played an important role in ensuring the security of New Zealand's electricity supply, particularly in dry years where our hydro-lake levels are low. But significant market investment in other forms of renewable energy in recent years, particularly in geothermal, means that a coal backstop is becoming less of a requirement," explains Simon Bridges, Minister of Energy and Resources.

The utility, Genesis Energy, decided to close the plants because of the "development of lower cost renewable generation, principally wind and geothermal, investment in the HVDC link, and relatively flat growth in consumer and industrial demand for electricity," says CEO Albert Brantley.

Coal Emissions

 "Advance notice of the unit closures will give the energy industry time to consider further investment in renewables," says Bridges, noting that significant geothermal projects have been approved and are waiting for development.

Hydro is the main source of electricity, and combined with geothermal (about 14%), supplied 80% of power last year. Geothermal is growing rapidly, surpassing natural gas for the first time in 2014. The goal is to run on 90% renewable electricity by 2025.

 New Zealand greatly lags developed nations for solar with just 13 megawatts because of the lack of any policy support. The industry is expected to begin growing anyway now prices are so low  ;D, but right now a mere 13 MW is installed, according to Renewable Energy World. 

 Last month, New Zealand submitted a fairly weak climate target to the UN - emission cuts of 30% by 2030 from 2005 levels. 46% of emissions come from agriculture (even though it leads on organic acreage), in contrast to 11% in most developed countries, according to the Ministry for the Environment. The country has been running a cap-and-trade system since 2010, but it doesn't include agriculture.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 13, 2015, 07:40:07 pm
If I gave you that impression AG, then you misconstrued what I was trying to say. I view your comments as extremely valuable, and I always listen to them.

I guess I misconstrued your comments. My point is that the status quo is corrupt. It appeared that you were concerned that eroding the authority and legitimacy of the EPA was a bad thing. If they weren't corrupted by profit over planet polluting bastards, that would be the case. It's not. They have a revolving door in the EPA too, you know. I can prove it. To state that "they are a Federal Agency" is true. But to state that while not adding that they are now a kowtowing tool of polluter corporations ignores their 24/7 role in socializing environmental costs and privatizing profits for MKing's pals.

In its early days, the EPA did some good. They cleaned up a lot of rivers, cleaned up sites like Love Canal and St. Joe Mining. Somewhere along the road to Reaganomics, it seems to have turned into what you describe.

Two things desperately need to happen.

(a) the people must be informed about what has happened to the EPA.  (

(b) we need to transform it or eliminate it.   (

Item (a) is just a means to accomplish (b), and if we choose to eliminate it,  we should then replace it with something that works to protect people and planet.

Rise Up!!

A good place to start is Josh Fox, maker of Gasland one and two.. If you didn't see Gasland, please do. It predicted the kind of environmental poison sandwich we are experiencing, as well as documenting the fracking poison sandwich that MKing never stops defending.


Leading Environmentalist: EPA an Oil Industry Mouthpiece
'Gasland' director Josh Fox calls fracking study ‘proof of the widespread, systemic contamination of our regulatory bodies’

BY:  Lachlan Markay   
June 8, 2015 5:00 am

Anti-energy activist and documentarian Josh Fox believes the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is shilling for fossil fuel companies.

“They will stick with the industry till all our water is contaminated, our air polluted and climate change has made our planet unlivable,” the filmmaker director said on Friday following the release of a widely anticipated EPA study on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

The innovative oil and gas extraction technique has no “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water,” the agency found. There were isolated incidents of water contamination among the wells tested, but “the number of identified cases … was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.”

Fox dismissed the findings in a column on the website EcoWatch.

“What the EPA presented to the public yesterday was PR, not science and proof of the widespread, systemic contamination of our regulatory bodies by the oil and gas industry,” Fox wrote.

“It is clear that EPA is a political agency not a scientific one,” he wrote on Twitter.

Fox is one of the country’s most high-profile anti-fracking activists. His 2011 documentary Gasland was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary and won a number of other awards.

The film claimed that fracked natural gas wells had contaminated nearby drinking water supplies. It gained broad attention for footage of a Colorado resident igniting the water coming from his kitchen faucet.

The Colorado town where the scene was filmed had reported naturally occurring methane in its drinking water for decades, before any wells in the area were hydraulically fractured. Fox later said he was aware of that fact, but didn’t include it in the film because “it’s not relevant.”

EPA’s study directly undercuts Fox’s case for water contamination. Gas from fractured shale formations is “unlikely to extend upward from these deep formations into shallow drinking water aquifers,” the study found.

Fox accused EPA of “burying the science with a misleading headline that supports the Obama Administration’s pro-fracking policies rather than reveal the true dangers of fracking.”

He has previously said that rolling electricity blackouts would be preferable to the use of hydraulic fracturing for energy extraction. (

The EPA is THOROUGHLY infiltrated (as in COOPTED) by the polluting corporations, be they fossil fuel, nuclear power, mining, chemical or pharmaceutical industries. Predatory Capitalism is the cause, NOT "inefficient" gooberment.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 16, 2015, 04:23:37 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Remember the old "but, but we LIVE LONGER. That's why we get more diseases  (" EXCUSE the profit over planet polluters have always given? An objective scientific study confirms IT'S NOT TRUE!

The Reason Brain Diseases Have Quadrupled in 21 Years

Given the power of modern medicine, why have brain diseases increased by four times?

Rates of brain diseases are increasing at almost epidemic rates, especially in the US, a new study reports.

Researchers have compared figures for neurological disease from 1989 with those from 2010 across 21 Western countries.

They found that dementia is starting, on average, a decade earlier in 2010 than it was in 1989.

In the US, the figures are particularly worrying.

Women over 75 are suffering five times as many neurological deaths as they were two decades ago.

The same comparison for men over 75 shows a three-fold increase in neurological deaths.

Professor Colin Pritchard, who led the study, said: “The rate of increase in such a short time suggests a silent or even a ‘hidden’ epidemic, in which environmental factors must play a major part, not just aging.

Modern living produces multi-interactional environmental pollution but the changes in human morbidity, including neurological disease is remarkable and points to environmental influences.”

Professor Pritchard continued: “In part, some of the results are explained by more effective treatments for cancer and heart disease, with advances in medicine making such physical illnesses easier to treat, whilst there have been less advances in the treatment of neurological conditions.

Crucially it is not just because people are living longer to get diseases  they previously would not have lived long enough to develop  but older people are developing neurological disease more than ever before.

The environmental changes in the last 20 years have seen increases in the human environment of petro-chemicals — air transport- quadrupling of motor vehicles, insecticides and rises in background electro-magnetic-field, and so on.

These results will not be welcome news as there are many with short-term vested interests that will want to ignore them.

It is not that we want to stop the modern world but rather make it safer.

Essentially, it is time for us to wake up and realize that a major problem we now face is unprecedented levels of neurological disease, not just the earlier dementias and thinking of the USA — `when America sneezes, Europe gets cold a decade later.” The study was published in the journal Surgical Neurology International (Pritchard & Rosenorn-Lanng, 2015).

"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.

It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.

These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior. It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder

Agelbert NOTE: Now, to the LONG LIST of the "EXTERNALIZED" costs gifted us by the Empathy Deficit Disordered "greed is good" crowd, we must add a three to five fold increase in neurological diseases.  (

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing 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! (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on August 16, 2015, 07:28:05 pm
Mining MENS REA AND EPA lies.   (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 01, 2015, 01:08:58 am
Web Site for the above Interactive Air Quality Map which can be zoomed to your area:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2015, 09:00:39 pm
Shilling for Dollars

Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert source.

To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.

But is the front group or its representatives really an expert and credible organization?  (

Full article:

Agelbert NOTE:
The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels happy talk) and climate science along with several other pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.

Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin

The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.


ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In 1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for ten years.[4]


ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has been referred to as “independent” in the press. However, according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by Mother Jones:

“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]

“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).

Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”[6]

ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]

Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:

Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]

Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer models that have not been validated and are far from perfect.”[9]

Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]

Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.”[11]

Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.”[12]

Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]


[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health website.

[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.” March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones, November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.

[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.

[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.

[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.” Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.

[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI (Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.

[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.

[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.

[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.

[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.

Food For Thought, Hall of Shame

Agelbert NOTE:
Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that swallowed their mendacious propaganda):

Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay  (

By Hank Campbell   ( | August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM

SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love "real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):

Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there are a lot of naïve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.

We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.

SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:

Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108 J/gallon.

SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics LIES):

Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.

Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of it are made a year (, it certainly isn't one now.

But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded the temperance movement to the tune of several million dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific objectivity of the author.  ;)

The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel bias).

The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F). 

If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker than ethanol.  ;D

But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine. (

The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a lower energy density.  ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way, leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized" cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.

When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll give you three guesses - the first two don't count.  ;)

Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline DOES) which can severely damage an engine.

More thermodynamically important, however,  the consistent chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.

In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because, unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase friction and decrease engine life.

Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers (more on that below).

IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations  are based on EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.

But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with automobiles.

But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel industry would not like that at all.

A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.

The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel" and "corrosion".

I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure ethanol).

Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind everything they write. (

Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere.  (

Renewables have higher ERoEI than fossil fuels (


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 04, 2015, 06:29:24 pm
Why Did 60,000 Endangered Antelopes Mysteriously Die in Four Days?  ???

Lorraine Chow | September 4, 2015 11:42 am

This past May, a large herd of saigas—a critically endangered antelope in Kazakhstan—died en masse, to the horror of conservationists worldwide. More than 120,000 of these creatures had mysteriously died across the Central Asian country in two weeks, including a whopping 60,000 saigas in central Kazakhstan in just four short days.

In a few short weeks, one-third of the worldwide population of saigas—known for its distinctive bulbous nose and for its key role in steppe grassland ecosystems—were found dead. Scientists had no idea why.  :(

“I’m flustered looking for words here,” Joel Berger, a senior scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, told The New York Times in June. “To lose 120,000 animals in two or three weeks is a phenomenal thing.  :o  :(”

The horrendous population dive stopped suddenly that June, causing even more confusion.

But now, as Live Science reported, scientists believe they have pinpointed the culprit—a common and normally harmless bacteria that lives in the animals’ bodies.

According to Live Science, an extensive analysis revealed that that toxins produced by Pasteurella and possibly Clostridia bacteria caused extensive bleeding in the animals’ organs. Pasteurella, a gut bacteria found in all ruminants such as saigas, is harmless unless the animal already has a weakened immune systems.

The current saiga antelope distribution. Photo credit: Google maps

Scientists have yet to figure out why this typically harmless bacteria has led to mass death.

One possible theory, according to wildlife vet and lead investigator Steffen Zuther, is an exceptionally cold winter followed by a very wet spring that could have caused the bacteria to become widespread in the environment, Live Science reported.

Zuther said that female saigas, which cluster up to calve their young, were hit the hardest. The mothers died first followed by their calves, as they are too young to eat any vegetation. This suggests mothers’ milk transmitted whatever was killing the animals.

Mass die-offs of the antelope—as well many other animal populations—are not unusual in nature. As Inquistr noted, about 270,000 saigas died in 1988, and 12,000 in 2010, but scientists are concerned that another hit could devastate the entire saiga population.

Saigas are listed as critically endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. A few herds live in Kazakhstan as well as one small herd in Russia and Mongolia. It’s currently estimated there are around 50,000 left.

Saiga antelopes are one of the fastest declining mammal species on our planet today. Photo credit: Saiga Conservation Alliance[/i][/size][/center]

E. J. Milner-Gulland, a conservation biologist at Imperial College London, spoke to The Guardian about the saiga die-offs in June, and the importance of future research into this area.

“If we understand the factors that contribute to these events, we may be able to mitigate or prevent them in the future,” she said. “This is important because three of the four remaining populations of saiga are at such low levels that an event like this could wipe them out completely.”

She also spoke about another very common but serious threat: humans.

“Hunting is a serious problem,” Milner-Gulland said. “We need to get all these populations to a level that is actually resilient enough to cope with the natural mass mortalities that happen in the saiga antelope. Anti-poaching needs to be a top priority for the Russian and Kazakh governments.”

According to the Saiga Conservation Alliance, poaching is a main factor driving the animal’s population decline. “The saiga’s meat and hide are traditionally valued, but nowadays saiga are primarily hunted for their translucent amber horn, which is used Southeast Asian countries for Chinese Traditional Medicine,” the alliance said.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 06, 2015, 02:10:31 pm
Real-Time Map Reveals China’s Deadly Air Pollution  :(
Cole Mellino | September 6, 2015 9:19 am

Using Google maps and new data on China’s air pollution, Berkeley researchers created a real-time map of the country’s appalling air quality. The map is based on findings that the scientists published last month in the journal PLoS One. Using hourly air pollution data from more than 1,500 sites, researchers concluded that air pollution is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.6 million people in China every year, or about 4,400 people a day. That’s roughly 17 percent of all deaths, or put another way, nearly 1 in 5 deaths can be attributed to the country’s toxic air pollution.

A near real-time map developed by Berkeley researchers exposes how widespread China’s air pollution problem is.

“Earlier studies put China’s annual air pollution death toll at one to two million, but this is the first to use newly released Chinese air monitoring figures,” says South China Morning Post. The authors of the study are members of Berkeley Earth, an independent nonprofit devoted to “expanding scientific investigations, educating and communicating about climate change, and evaluating mitigation efforts in developing and developed economies.”

Though pollution in China’s northeast corridor running from Beijing to Shanghai is “particularly intense,” the problem is widespread. “Consistent with prior findings, the greatest pollution occurs in the east, but significant levels are widespread across northern and central China and are not limited to major cities or geologic basins,” said researchers. They found that during a four month period from April to August 2014, 92 percent of the population experienced more than 120 hours of “unhealthy air” based on the standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And 38 percent experienced long-term average concentrations that were unhealthy.

“[The] map provides near real-time information on particulate matter air pollution less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5),” researchers said. PM2.5 is microscopic particulate matter that is small enough to “lodge deep inside a person’s lungs and cause health problems in the long term,” says South China Morning Post. “Under typical conditions, PM2.5 is the most damaging form of air pollution likely to be present, contributing to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, respiratory infections and other diseases,” say the researchers.

Today, the map shows the areas around Shanghai, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Nantong, Nanjing, Yichang, Luzhou, Qíngdao and Laiwu as having “unhealthy” air quality.

Large portions of the map fall under the category of “unhealthy for sensitive groups” and the vast majority of the mapped area falls under the “moderate” health category. Only a very few small areas fall under the category of “good.” The most unsafe air quality index (180.9) can be found near the city of Yichang, a major economic hub for the region. Its PM2.5 air pollution concentration is 113.4.

To put China’s air pollution problem in perspective, look at Madera, California. The American Lung Association lists Madera’s air pollution as the worst in the country. And yet, “99.9 percent of the eastern half of China has a higher annual average for small particle haze than Madera,” said the study’s lead author, Dr Robert Rohde. “In other words, nearly everyone in China experiences air that is worse for particulates than the worst air in the U.S.”

Earlier this year, a documentary exposing China’s abysmal air quality went viral within days of its release. The film was hailed by some government officials, but was ultimately banned by the state.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 07, 2015, 07:50:03 pm
Canada Clears Way for Ecuadorean Case Against Chevron Over ‘Amazon Chernobyl’

Posted on Sep 6, 2015

Canada’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that Ecuadorean villagers can go after Canadian assets of the U.S.-based oil company Chevron. The lawsuit has been one of the most bitterly contested environmental cases in history, involving contamination that environmentalists have dubbed the “Amazon Chernobyl.”

From Al-Jazeera:

The plaintiffs, who include about 30,000 villagers and indigenous people, decided to go after the energy giant’s assets in Canada, Brazil and Argentina after the company contested a ruling by Ecuador’s highest court to pay $9.5 billion to clean up the contamination site.

Communities in the Lago Agrio region of Ecuador allege that Texaco, which was acquired by Chevron in 2001, dumped some 16 billion tons of oil and toxic waste in the Amazon rainforest as a cost-saving measure between 1964 and 1992, Telesur reported. That’s 80 times the amount of oil spilled in the 2010 British Petroleum Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, the Latin American news website added.

Ecuadorian villagers and indigenous communities affected by the contamination allege that it has resulted in illness and death, Telesur reported in June, and that they are still suffering the consequences of Texaco’s actions.

Plaintiffs claim that
Texaco attempted to hide the dumping by covering nearly 1,000 oil pits with vegetation. People eventually built homes over some of the pits, and began coming down with mysterious illnesses, it is claimed.

“It has been 33 years … and I never knew that this was a covered pit,” local resident Serbio Curipoma told Telesur.  :(  >:(

“And my water well is only 4 or 5 meters away. My children and myself are always sick, we get skin rashes, high temperatures from fevers, everything,” he added. “It is unfortunate, and I am worried about my family living in these conditions, my wife has had problems with her uterus.” :(  >:(

Friday’s ruling upheld a 2013 decision by the Ontario court of appeal, confirming that Canada was an appropriate jurisdiction for the case. Because Chevron has no assets in Ecuador, plaintiffs pursued its subsidiary Chevron Canada. The case will now proceed to a lower court in Ontario.

“Canadian courts, like many others, have adopted a generous and liberal approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments,” the Canadian Supreme Court said in its ruling.

The plaintiffs, who have been fighting for compensation for more than 20 years, initially sued Texaco – which later merged with Chevron – over the mass contamination.

The Canadian court clarified that it was not taking a position on the merits of the case, only providing an opportunity for it to proceed.

“A finding of jurisdiction does nothing more than afford the plaintiffs the opportunity to seek recognition and enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment,” Justice Clement Gascon wrote for the court, according to Global News.

Chevron said in a statement that it would continue to fight the Ecuadorian judgment, which it characterized as “the product of fraud and other misconduct, and is therefore illegitimate and unenforceable.”

In 2014, a U.S. judge ruled that an American lawyer working on behalf of plaintiffs to secure the $9.5 billion settlement in Ecuadorian court used corrupt means. That ruling was appealed.

“It is clearer than ever that Chevron’s long run from justice is coming to an end,”   (
Aaron Marr Page, a U.S. lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

The villagers and indigenous communities affected have vowed to see the case against Chevron through until the corporation cleans up the contamination and adequately compensates them for their losses.

( (  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 12, 2015, 07:07:15 pm
Nick Breeze interview with East Siberian Arctic Shelf researcher (ESAS) Dr. Natalia Shakhova on why the important news about methane news is not reaching mainstream news. Powerful interests seem to be in the way of Arctic methane education.

Palloy can tell us what a mathematician's definition of a low probability event or a high probability event is. But, if that is an existential threat, what is the cognitive threshold approximate percentage that would spur the average person to dispense with supporting incremental measures to prevent that threat and demand immediate and massive measures?

IOW, do we perceive a 20% or greater chance of Near Term Human Extinction, even though that is technically a relatively low probability (although a statistically significant one!), as a high probability?

Threat response is a bag of worms even without people making money form convincing people to keep bathing in that river in Egypt.  :P

But isn't part of that denial a refusal to OWN the responsibility for the possibility that the threat is significant enough to merit immediate action, rather than incremental measures?

I go blue in the face every time Monsta brings up his "we are all to blame because of population overshoot" business. But at least he recognizes that there IS an existential threat, even if he has difficulties reading pie charts.


Anyone can see that if you CULL 80% of human population (ALL the poor and MOST of the middle class), you will not DENT the level of pollution being generated by the rest of Homo Sapdom. Monsta doesn't get that. He really thinks that all those dead people will convince the surviving predators to be nice to the environment.  (

And there is ( that Monsta's wet depopulation dream will solve our environmental problems, not simply because the polluting industry facts state otherwise, but because the morally challenged Predators 'R' US world view of the top 20% is at the ROOT of the degradation of democracy and the biosphere.

But Monsta will not go there. And he will not go there because, if he did, the whole population overshoot thing would be exposed for the scapegoating, blame the victim, ethics challenged rhetoric that it is.

NO, Monsta, all those high resource users will NOT use less resources because 80% of the population died.

THAT is because THAT 80% DOES NOT participate significantly  in the MARKET (see GDP fun and games) for all that industrial STUFF we produce in the piggy counties. the FACTORIES will NOT slow down to a sustainable biosphere 'roar' just because the bottom 80% get offed, as you seem to believe.

Thought Experiment (backed up by U.N. study FACTS): About 20% of the Population of humans does about 80% of the damage to the biosphere. Would it then be logical to reduce the population from the main polluters in equal proportion to the low carbon footprint 80%?

Only if you are logic challenged AND belong to the less than 20% doing more than 80% of the damage.

However, if you think critically, you would understand that the culprit is the carbon footprint of the less than 20% pig humans that everybody posting here belongs to. You would also understand that culling the low carbon footprint masses is, besides being useless to stop the environmental damage, a cruel cop out.

The problem is industrial pollution BY THAT less than 20% group AND their big meat and big ag pollution on top of that.

The solution REQUIRES, WITHOUT DELAY, a maximum carbon footprint allowed, FIRST OF ALL, to our polluting piggy 20%.

That means we get OFF of fossil fuels, nuclear power and we start eating insect protein instead of animal protein along with organic veggies.

THEN, an only then, can we address the human population problem.

Here's a nice picture from the U.N. that shows the REAL world out there. Your idea of killing most of humanity will not put a DENT in the pollution problem as long as we in the polluting piggy 20% keep doing what we do.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2015, 12:01:09 am
More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy

by Robert W. Carter

My colleague John Sanford and I have recently published a paper in a secular journal with what we believe are profound implications.1

Our basic claim is that ‘genetic entropy’ works in the real world, which brings questions about the role of natural selection and the long-term survival of species into the future.

A new look at an old virus

The paper analyzed mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza genome using over 95 years’ worth of genetic sequences (figure 1).

Figure 1. Mutation accumulation in human H1N1. The published Brevig Mission strain from 1918 was used as the baseline (bold line) for comparison with all available human-infecting H1N1 genomes. There are two distinct trend lines in the data. The 2009–2010 outbreak samples and additional samples from 2011–2012 are circled. These and the scattered points are all derived from swine H1N1 versions. The remaining points represent mutation accumulation in the ‘human’ version of H1N1: from 1918 to its initial extinction in 1957, a break of 19 years, its re-introduction in 1976 (of a strain from approximately 1955, after which the mutation count picks up where it left off), and a second disappearance in 2009.

This type of data is a rarity in the world of genetics, since most sequence data are from recent organisms with long generation times. The influenza virus, however, has been isolated and sequenced from human tissue samples all the way back to 1918.

With a human-to-human transmission on average every three days or so, this makes over 11,000 disease generations and many times more than that number of viral generations.

The number of viral generations is possibly comparable to the number of generations since the supposed human-chimpanzee split.

Full article:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2015, 03:40:46 pm
Monsanto Charged with Chemically Poisoning Farmer

Michelle Schoffro Cook
September 18, 2015

Three years ago a French farmer sued Monsanto and won, stating that the company’s pesticide product known as Lasso had poisoned him, causing neurological problems. The company appealed the court decision by taking the lawsuit to a higher French court. Just days ago, the French court upheld the original decision that Monsanto’s product Lasso poisoned the French farmer, causing his neurological concerns.  (

While it is likely that Monsanto will appeal the court decision yet again, the victory is being celebrated by many people worldwide as one that sets a precedent for future rulings against the biotechnology giant. Monsanto no longer sells Lasso in the United States, Canada, Britain, France or Belgium, citing commercial reasons for phasing out the product in these markets.

Lasso was specifically an herbicide—used to destroy weeds and grasses—marketed to farmers.

In the U.S. government’s own Health and Human Services Household Products Database, Lasso is warned to cause blindness, respiratory irritation, liver damage, kidney damage, eye nerve inflammation, jaundice, bladder inflammation, the destruction of red blood cells and blood in urine, as well as other serious health effects.

The U.S. government’s database is self-regulated (, meaning that companies report whether their own products are toxic, and if so, in which ways. As a result, the database includes little toxicity information about its product Roundup.  (

 The database reports that Monsanto has not provided any information about any possible chronic health effects from use of or exposure to Roundup.  However, the company warns: “When using [Roundup] do not eat, drink or smoke. Wash hands thoroughly after handling or contact. Thoroughly clean equipment after use. Do not contaminate drains, sewers and water ways when disposing of equipment rinse water.”

Yet, because the product is sprayed on soil, it finds its way into water ways and sewers.

Monsanto now focuses its attention on manufacturing and distributing other pesticide products like Roundup as well as genetically-modified seeds. Roundup has also received international attention. In the spring of this year, the World Health Organization indicated that glyphosate—an ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup—as well as other pesticides are probable carcinogens to humans. While the research confirming that the pesticides cause cancer was conducted by a team of nineteen international cancer scientists and published in The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, the company demanded a retraction from the World Health Organization, claiming the research to be “junk science.”

While it is not clear yet how the French farmer will be remunerated for his neurological illness that includes memory loss, stammering and headaches, Monsanto’s lawyer  ( indicates that the company will appeal the decision again.  Stay posted to find out how the lengthy lawsuits will end.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 20, 2015, 07:14:01 pm
( Tuna and mackerel populations suffer catastrophic 74% decline, research shows

WWF and the Zoological Society of London found that numbers of the scombridae family of fish, which also includes bonito, fell by 74% between 1970 and 2012, outstripping a decline of 49% for 1,234 ocean species over the same period. 

The conservation charity warned that we face losing species critical to human food security, unless drastic action is taken to halt overfishing and other threats to marine life.

Louise Heaps, chief advisor on marine policy at WWF UK, said:
"This is catastrophic. We are destroying vital food sources, and the ecology of our oceans.” (

Full article: (

Agelbert NOTE: The typical reaction (by the fossil fuelers and N.T.H.E. threat denying wishful thinkers) to the above will be the wailing and gnashing of teeth about "overpopulation"  ( However, Global Warming caused CO2 ocean acidification and other industrial and big ag pollutants like chemical fertilizers will be, uh, mentioned in passing, THUS: "we are solving all that with incremental measures. No need to get so excited. We must weigh the benefits to society of business as usual against the "minor" cost of collapsing tuna, mackerel, shellfish, sea cucumbers, sea turtles, etc., populations. There is no reason to let this alarmist news stampede us in to any rash activity that might threaten GDP!".  (

Right after that they will scream for all those "useless eaters" out there to stop driving tuna sandwich prices up! The "job creator" one percent wants to serve champagne and caviar, not tuna casserole!  (

Palloy tries to downplay the above marine species extinction threat. Palloy does not get it. I will explain why.

At the risk of being called a shill for the fossil fuel industry by AG, again, I should just like to point out that the pH of the oceans varies between 8.1 and 8.4, and that so far climate change hasn't altered that by 0.1 anywhere at all.  It would happen in time of course, IF we continued to burn fossil fuels at the same, or increasing rates.  But if you believe in Peak Fossils then that won't happen - not because THEY wouldn't want to, but because they won't be able to make money out of it.  That's when they will stop extracting fossil fuels, and industrial civilisation will collapse.

Temperatures will continue to rise maybe until 2045, and ocean acidification will continue, but industrialised fishing will be over almost instantly, and fish stocks will replenish quickly.  The mix of species will be different, no doubt, but they have always been different, and nobody is really aware of what the mix is anyway.

So don't worry, just pray the collapse happens soon.

Sigh, you mathematicians don't do much biosphere math, do you? What YOU call "insignificant" pH (you know, the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration) differences have VERY significant (as in homeostatic band required) effects on living systems (you know, the stuff we eat!).

Homeostasis REQUIRES that strict pH (and temperature and pressure and dissolved CO2 and dissolved O2, etc.) bands be adhered to or the organism dies. The reason it dies is because thousands to millions of biochemical reactions per second, vital to living processes, will not take place outside those homeostatic bands.

For mathematicians, the numbers are "significant" if they are, say, 2% or more and INSIGNIFICANT when they vary less than that.

For biologists, the numbers are homeostatic band life or death SIGNIFICANT when they vary by 0.01 % - often even less!).

This is so because the enzymes (catalysts made by living systems to lower the energy of activation for chemical reactions so the organism does not overheat and die from chemical reaction waste heat inefficiencies) will NOT take place when the pH (in combination with the other factors I mentioned) varies by a very small percentage. And all these bands vary in different parts of the human body. The pH band your bloodstream can handle is far less than the one the water in your tissues can handle.

There is a LOT MORE to this.

For example, I'm sure you would agree that being drunk is hazardous to your health because it slows your reflexes, dehydrates you, stresses your kidneys and liver and blinds you to reality because the system thinks it is pigging out on cheap energy - sends your brain a signal that everything is amazingly great (that's called being high).

The change in concentration of alcohol in the blood required to effect all these deleterious changes (that the organism itself perceives INCORRECTLY  as  "good" because it FEELS good") is, from your point of view, tiny.

( (

Biosphere math is DIFFERENT from the math applied to non-living matter, Palloy. Stop trying to apply your math to living systems. It is tantamount to peddling rose colored glasses about the severity of our environmental plight.   (

Here's one more example of how a pollutant in our atmosphere that kills life is actually made by living systems to preserve life. It's all in the percentages, Palloy. It's all in where the polluting gas is and how much of it there is. The life or death differences in percentage are FAR LESS than 0.01%.

The gas I refer to is Nitric Oxide (NO).

Environmental effects

Nitric oxide in the air may convert to nitric acid, which has been implicated in acid rain. However, it is an important source of nutrition for plant life in the form of nitrates. Furthermore, both NO and NO2 participate in ozone layer depletion. (

Humans make Nitric oxide in their noses to kill bacteria before it gets to their lungs. This is why breathing through your nose is a good idea.  ;D

But the percentage is so tiny that a fellow like you would claim it was "insignificant" if it was no longer there (which would guarantee bacterial attacks on the lung tissue  :P).

On the other hand, if we breath too much  Nitric oxide because it's in the atmosphere as a pollutant, it can destroy tissue. And before it does that, it will vasodilate the begeezes out of your blood vessels, depleting your ability to get oxygen to your brain and everywhere else in your body. Too much, by a very small percentage, will kill you.

This is what homeostasis is ALL ABOUT. This is why Lovelock used the homeostatic analogy in his Gaia hypothesis. He understood the incredibly small percentage of variation that our biosphere REQUIRES to be viable. The fact that most people are not aware of this is used by the deluded wishful thinkers to claim the gravity of our situation can be solved by killing off most of the human population. NEVER MIND that the top 20% will still be there doing 80% of the damage.


The collapse of the human population will not allow the fish populations to rebound simply because EATING the fish, though a contributing factor, is not the main reason they are headed for extinction.

Your post is biosphere reality challenged. It's time for you to take of the "culling the population will solve all our problems" rose colored glasses.



Palloy said,
At the risk of being called a shill for the fossil fuel industry by AG, again, I should just like to point out that the pH of the oceans varies between 8.1 and 8.4, and that so far climate change hasn't altered that by 0.1 anywhere at all.

How can Palloy be right about percentages and WRONG about the deleterious impact on marine species at the same time?  :icon_scratch:  First of all, he refused to state the TREND when he said that  "pH of the oceans varies between 8.1 and 8.4". This is double talk for, "it's no big deal". To cover his illogical ass he then says that "eventually" it's gonna happen. LOL! A brain dead person knows that! His entire post lowballs the  existential threat for marine species due to CO2 caused ocean acidification. This is what irresponsible defenders of the polluting energy status quo DO.   (



OA Observations and Data

Follow the links below to access ocean acidification data for each of our observation programs

The field of carbon cycle science depends on well-designed, well-executed, and carefully maintained observations.  The PMEL carbon group primarily focuses on large scale observations of ocean interior carbon through hydrographic cruises and surface ocean carbon dynamics through measurements made on volunteer observing ships, buoys, and other autonomous systems. We work in both the open ocean and in coastal environments. We maintain long-term time series observations as well as conducting short term process studies or exploratory studies.  Since ocean acidification emerged as an important scientific issue, we have been augmenting and expanding our observational capacity by adding pH and other biogeochemical measurements to the platforms listed below. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 20, 2015, 07:34:36 pm
Your alcohol analogy might be just the key to get through to the sceptics. The good time now and hangover later just last a lot longer.

Agreed. But, as you have correctly pointed out in past posts, the "skeptics" with an agenda will remain "unconvinced", so to speak.  :evil4:

We all agree that MKing, Palloy, Snowleapard, Alan, Ashvin, etc, et al are not stupid. So, low IQ is no excuse for being biosphere math challenged.

We all agree that they support incremental measures, rather than drastic ones, to address the environmental problems.

We all agree that they,  even if they aren't biologists or medical doctors, can read scientific journals and watch videos by credentialed climate scientists. 

So, the excuse, often repeated by some of the above luminaries, that "they don't know that much about biology or climate science" does not hold water.

Having an agenda to downplay the existential threat does (see shoe sizes   (  (

To anyone I failed to mention in the list of irresponsible and criminally negligent homo saps that downplay the existential threat to humanity of CO2 Pollution:

UB, I recommend you save his image. It might come in handy when you are debating prevaricating forks.  ;D,5598.msg85816.html#msg85816

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2015, 07:16:32 pm
Air Pollution Near Kids’ Homes Linked to Lower Grades at School  :(

Academic performance of minority students shows disproportionate effects from air pollution, according to a study in El Paso.

By Alana Fichman

More than 760,000 trucks pass through El Paso’s two entry points from Mexico each year; it is the highest-ranked city for carbon monoxide levels in Texas and rates eighth in the nation for particulate pollution. Traces of air pollution can be found in the school classroom, affecting minority students disproportionately.

Researchers from the University of Texas show that the overall GPA of fourth- and fifth-graders in public schools dropped 0.02–0.04 points for every one standard deviation increase in greater exposure to toxic substances in the air. Despite excessive truck traffic, non-road sources were shown to have the greatest effect, including pollution from an international airport, a bi-national freight station, and a military base.

Not dramatic, but significant

The effects on student grades aren’t dramatic, acknowledges Sara E. Grineski, Ph.D., University of Texas–El Paso, but she argues that we should definitely still pay attention.  (

According to the study, “Air toxic exposures may not dramatically affect children’s school performance at a population level,“ but, researchers add, “Effects appear to be insidious, since they are mild, unlikely to be perceived, and hence unlikely to be addressed in any way.”

Researchers measured air toxicity based on the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). All but one substance was shown to correlate negatively with student performance.

This is not the first study to correlate pollution and academic performance. However, previous studies have used standardized testing and air pollution levels based on school locations rather than students’ homes, where kids spend the majority of their time.

How school performance relates to air quality

School performance and absenteeism are predicted to relate to air toxicity in at least two ways:

•as a cause of asthma and respiratory illnesses, preventing attendance

•as a directly damaging impact on cognitive and neurological development

These researchers “underscore the continuing need to emphasize children as a vulnerable population in EJ [environmental justice] research and activism.”
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 26, 2015, 01:26:36 am

Designed For The Dump     (

Here is another brilliant, amusing and informative presentation from The Story Of Stuff creator Annie Leonard.

 We know that e-waste is a problem - but Ms. Leonard makes the point clear: it is a global toxic emergency.

 Gadgets are made from thousands of different materials shipped to assembly plants all around the world. They release toxins at every stage of their life cycle, from mining the metals to assembly and production. In the end, whether they sit in landfills or are taken apart for precious materials inside -- toxins continue to be released.

 As it is now, externalizing the costs of the mountains of e-waste allows companies to keep designing for the dump. Good News: there are emerging Product Take Back laws gaining traction in Europe and Asia that may begin to make manufacturers accountable for their products.

 What if electronics designers instead could compete for the longest lasting, most toxic free products? What if gadgets were created in a way that enabled them to be...repaired?

 --Bibi Farber

 This video was produced by the Story of Stuff Project
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 27, 2015, 10:09:46 pm
Forest Loss and Land Degradation Fuel Climate Crisis  (

Posted on Sep 25, 2015

By Tim Radford, Climate News Network

LONDON—The planet’s forests have dwindled by 3%—equivalent almost to the land area of South Africa—in the last 25 years, according to a new assessment by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

While the planet continues to lose its forests—albeit at a slower rate—through felling, burning or being turned into farmland, another UN study predicts that the economic cost of degraded agricultural land in the form of lost ecosystem services now amounts to up to US$10 trillion a year.

Within 10 years, 50 million people could have been forced to abandon their homes and livelihoods to become migrants. If all those people were assembled in one place, they would constitute the planet’s 28th biggest nation in terms of population.

Increasing levels  (

Forest loss and farmland degradation are both part of climate change accountancy. The rise in greenhouse gases is in part linked to the loss of forest cover to soak up the carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels.

But increasing levels of heat and drought are likely to accompany climate change, increasing the area of desert or land too arid to support life and industry.

So in losing forest, and in watching farmland become saline because of over-irrigation, or exhausted by intensive cultivation or overgrazing, or simply increasingly too arid to support vegetation, humans are witnessing the loss of all sorts of valuable services not normally recorded by accountants.

Ideas such as “natural capital” and ecosystem services are attempts to place a practical value on things that nature normally delivers for free.

The percentage of global land area hit by drought doubled between the 1970s and the early years of this century.   (

That is because living things—plants and soil fauna in particular—provide food, fibres, medicines and building materials, as well as helping to provide clean water, regulate disease, and recycle nutrients.

The United Nations University report believes that the loss of these services could now be between $6.3 trillion and $10.6 trillion a year in value. This is between 10% and 17% of global gross domestic product.

Alternatively, the “lost services” per square kilometre amount to between $43,000 and $72,000. Or, to put it yet another way, that is between $870 and $1,450 per person per year for everyone on the planet.

And 57% of world agricultural land is now either moderately or severely degraded, the report says. The percentage of global land area hit by drought doubled between the 1970s and the early years of this century.

Ecosystem services

( of Africa is threatened by desertification (, and land cover changes since 2000 are responsible for half to three-quarters of the value of lost ecosystem services.

Separate from this, but also part of the overall climate change accounting equation, has been the steady loss of forests.

Researchers recently completed the first realistic “census” of the planet’s forests, and arrived at an inventory of more than three trillion trees, but also the conclusion that humans were destroying forests at the rate of 15 billion trees a year.

The latest UN global forest assessment acknowledges that, 25 years ago, around 7.3 million hectares were being lost each year. This slowed to 3.3m hectares a year between 2010 and 2015.

Tropical forests were hardest hit     (, with a loss rate of 10%. A decline in “natural forest” has been offset by a 66% rise in planted forest, and Australia in particular has actually gained 1.5m hectares of forested land in the last five years.

Agelbert NOTE:
Virtually ALL the biodiversity hotspots for mammals on planet Earth are in the tropics (Professor Gerardo Ceballos in video slide presentation at bottom).

The Earth has entered a new period of extinction, a study by three US universities has concluded, and humans could be among the first casualties.

The report, led by the universities of Stanford, Princeton and Berkeley, said vertebrates were disappearing at a rate 114 times faster than normal.

The findings echo those in a report published by Duke University last year.

One of the new study's authors said: "We are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event." The last such event was 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs were wiped out, in all likelihood by a large meteor hitting Earth.

"If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover and our species itself would likely disappear early on," said the lead author, Gerardo Ceballos.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on September 29, 2015, 02:24:39 pm
Campaigners welcome Drax’s decision to pull out of destructive energy project:   (

Biofuelwatch Media Advisory, 25th September 2015

Environmental campaigners welcome today’s news that Drax Plc has withdrawn from the proposed White Rose Project. The power station would have been the UK’s first new coal plant since 1974, and the EU’s first commercial power station designed  ;) for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).  ::)

In June this year, Biofuelwatch, together with the London Mining Network and Coal Action Network, handed a petition signed by over 110,000 people to DECC, urging them not to subsidise the White Rose (1).   (

The plant would have burned at least 85% coal and up to 15% wood pellets. Drax’s existing power station imports some of its coal from Colombia, where whole villages have been evicted for opencast coal mines. The mines pollute and deplete water and soils, and have serious impacts on small farming communities (2). Much of the wood burned at Drax is imported from the southern US where conservation NGOs have documented that wood from clearcut, highly biodiverse wetland forests is being turned into pellets destined for Drax in Yorkshire (3). Although the White Rose would have been designed with carbon capture and storage infrastructure, there would have been no legal obligation for it to actually capture any CO2.

The UK government has already spent £50 million   >:( on a feasibility study for this plant and were expected to announce up to £900 million in further upfront subsidies.


Almuth Ernsting from Biofuelwatch states: “Drax’s decision to pull out of the White Rose project should spell the end for this destructive project. It would have resulted in more carbon emissions, more environmental destruction and pollution from coal mining, and more forest destruction for wood pellets. DECC should be supporting sustainable and low carbon renewable energy, such as sustainable wind and solar power, as well as energy efficiency and conservation – not coal, big biomass and false techno-fixes like CCS.”

Biofuelwatch continues to campaign for an end to the vast subsidies that Drax’s existing power station receives (4).


•The petition was ran by Care.2:, see about the hand-over of the petition.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 01, 2015, 07:42:02 pm

Your posts about methane got to people too. It doesn't matter if they can "handle it" psychologically. What matters is the fact that there isn't any way in hell we are going to avoid the methane bomb if we don't stop burning fossil fuels, like, YESTERDAY. When they don't jump on you here and call you a hysterical, sensationalist, scaremongering nihilist, consider yourself to have scored some debating points.   ;D

As to your view on the Cowspiracy and your, admittedly valid, claim that our meat consumption is unsustainable, I think you lack the proper perspective on the relationship of our unsustainable meat eating habits with the Sixth Mass Extinction Event we are in.

By going vegan the amount of the earth needed to keep a human alive drops by an order of magnitude thus making human survival possible.

Does "going vegan" allow Insect  & Mollusk consumption?

I am OK with this if I can still eat Grasshoppers & Snails.  Also, is it OK to feed Flies to my Frogs and then eat their legs?


In my view yes.  Even just dropping meat and keeping dairy would probably be enough if everyone did it.

Professor Gerardo Cebellos, lead author of the latest study on the evidence we are in the Sixth Mass Extinction, disagrees. So do I.  8)

I prepared a post to counter Ashvin's view, and it seems your your view as well, that concentrated feed operations are a bigger threat than CO2 pollution. I will post it here soon.

The point is that that meat eating is a subset of our unsustainable activity, not the proximate MAIN cause of environmental degradation.

We do have to switch to insect protein, of course. That's a no-brainer. But you are dreaming if you think that is going to stop the Sixth Mass Extinction in any significant way.

WHY? Because there is a LOT more going on out there, due to the CO2 build up, that is contributing to the main cause of BOTH land and marine mammalian vertebrate species extinctions.

Yes, eliminating the concentrated animal feeding operations and all the crop land needed to raise food for them from the energy mix would reduce our CO2 emissions. So we must do that. But, if we don't go 100% renewable energy, it will not be enough to STOP the mass extinction going on now that threatens vertebrate mammals,  which we just happen to be, in particular. WE are destroying OUR habitat by burning fossil fuels, along with the habitat of countless other species.

Since Ashvin appears to have gone away for a while WITHOUT answering the question I asked him on the last post, I'll just post the abridged version of my post. I'll post the whole enchilada with references in an article when I get to it.  ;D Enjoy the short version:

I am all for switching to insect protein powder for yummy hamburgers.
I am all for putting wildlife corridors on all agricultural land where humans (biologist caretakers armed to deal with trespassing humans excluded) are not allowed and will be shot on sight with arrows and used for owl and eagle species recovery efforts.

We need to do that. We need to free range whatever animals we raise and we need to severely cut back on how many of them we raise. We need to make more efficient use of farmed animal droppings for the express purpose of totally eliminating chemical fertilizers.

But if we do all that BEFORE we address the CO2 problem, and continue to burn off present estimates of global carbon reserves, the wildlife extinction will accelerate, not slow down.

Figure 6: The Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum.

THIS was February of 2013:
Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species

In February 2013, CO2 levels had risen to near 396.80ppm at Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory, compared to 393.54ppm in February 2012. This rise - 3.26ppm per year - is at the highest rate yet recorded. Further measurements show CO2 is at near 400ppm of the atmosphere over the Arctic. At this rate the upper stability threshold of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at about 500–600ppm CO2 would be reached later this century (although hysteresis of the ice sheets may slow down melting).

Our global carbon reserves - including coal, oil, oil shale, tar sands, gas and coal-seam gas - contain considerably more than 10,000 billion tonnes of carbon (see Figure 5). This amount of carbon, if released into the atmosphere, is capable of raising atmospheric CO2 levels to higher than 1000ppm. Such a rise in atmospheric radiative forcing will be similar to that of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum (PETM), which happened about 55 million years-ago (see Figures 1, 2 and 4).

Ashvin, please digest the following sentence about the 3.26ppm per year rate referenced above.

But the rate of rise surpasses those of this thermal maximum by about ten times. (

Now please look at this graphic:
Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago. As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising, at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding. (

Ashvin, the most important issue of our time is the existential threat we face from CO2 pollution. The other empathy deficit disordered activites humans are foolishly, greedily and stupidly pursuing need to be addressed. Those activities produce habit a destruction.

But CO2 is the elephant in the high extinctions rate room.

The MOST negatively impacted areas of our biosphere (i. e. THE TROPICS from land deforestation and desertification and ocean acidification plus heat  MORE than from atmospheric temperature increase) from CO2 pollution are PRECISELY where the our biosphere's BIODIVERSITY is concentrated.




The evidence is clear. That is, along with the increase in CO2 ppm, the annual RATE of rise of annual CO2 is increasing too.

The most important issue of our time is the existential threat we face from CO2 pollution. That is causing far more habitat destruction than all the other unsustainable human activities.

CO2 is the elephant in the high extinctions rate room. If the above has not convinced you of that, I fear hard experience starting around 2040 will.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 04, 2015, 06:57:40 pm
How Did the World's Oldest Creature Die?

A clam named "Ming" by marine researchers was probably born during the time of the Ming Dynasty in China in 1499. Although the world's oldest known living creature, the clam met an unfortunate end while researchers were trying to determine its age.

This particular ocean clam was one of several hundred clams collected from the Icelandic shelf in the year 2006. Although some sources report that researchers killed the clam by opening it to better count the rings that would reveal its age, others report that the clams died when they were frozen to be transported to the labs in the UK.

The researchers eventually made the best calculation by counting the rings on the outside of the clam's shell. Ming turned out to be older than they had initially assumed -- 507 years old. Ming was a member of a type of hard-shelled ocean clam called "quahog."

The marine researches from Bangor University in the UK who made the discovery were strongly criticized for causing the death of the oldest known living creature in the world.  (  Others have taken it more lightly saying that researchers may not have known the age of the clam when they first found it, as clams remain the same size after a certain age.  ::)

It is also possible that clams even older than Ming continue to inhabit the Icelandic shelf and the North Atlantic.

More about clams:

•It is possible to tell the age of a clam from the rings on its shell because it grows a new layer every year. So each ring represents one year.

•There are more than 15,000 clam species in the world.

•A soft-shelled clam can pump 10 gallons of sea water per day for oxygen. It's this pump and filtration process that makes clams living in unclean water unfit for consumption.

Agelbert NOTE: Thanks to CO2 caused increased ocean acidification, the expression, "Happy as a clam", is no longer applicable. The fossil fuel industry is a much greater threat to Calcium Carbonate shell forming marine life forms than ethics free scientists who like to take living things apart.

If business continues as usual, the surface ocean pH will drop to 8.0 by 2050 and to 7.8 by century’s end. At that point the oceans will be 150% more acidic than they were at the start of the industrial revolution. Marine biologists like Jason Hall-Spencer have warned about the catastrophic consequences to marine life if the oceans’ pH reaches 7.8. According to him this represents a tipping point at which the ocean’s ecosystems start to crash.


If current trends continue, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be 500 ppm by 2050, double the levels in pre-industrial days. So in a sense, all the progress that civilization has made due to the expenditure of large quantities of energy since 1850 or so has now essentially doomed civilization unless radical changes are made in how this energy is obtained and utilized.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 06, 2015, 06:03:26 pm

Honeybees Face Global Threat: If They Die, So Do We

Reynard Loki, AlterNet | October 6, 2015 12:17 pm

Agelbert COMMENT: This issue is so staggeringly threatening to the entire biosphere, not just humans, that charges of ecocide are merited against Monsanto and any other chemical corporation, stupid and predatory enough to ignore long term harm for short term profits.

The fossil fuel industry falsely claims the world owes them for "feeding millions" with fossil fuel powered farm machines, fossil fuel based pesticides and fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers that "increased the yield per acre of crops". It's a lie. ('green-revolution'-fossil-duel-based-lie/msg325/#msg325)

What really Happened at the EPA (

New Study Shows Glaring Differences Between GMO and Non-GMO Food (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 11, 2015, 06:26:04 pm
When Was the First Lawnmower Used?

The Budding human powered push mower - they later made bigger ones like the above pulled by a horse

The first lawnmower was patented in 1830 by a mechanic called Edwin Beard Budding. Before lawn mowers were invented all cultivated grass was cut by hand or grazed by animals. Lawns were considered to be a sign of great wealth, as they needed considerable hours of effort for maintenance.

Budding designed his machine based around similar devices already used to cut cloth. Allegedly he was worried he would be ridiculed by his neighbors and so only used his prototype at night.  (  ;D

However, Budding's mower machine was a financial success and over 1,000 of them had been made and sold by 1840.

More about lawns:

•In the 17th century, it was considered good practice to regularly use heavy iron rollers pulled by horses to flatten a lawn. The horses would wear woolen shoes to soften their tread on the grass.

•It is estimated Americans spend $40 billion on lawn care every year.

•A survey of satellite data indicated the total combined space of cultivated lawns in the United States is roughly equal to the size of New York State.  :o  :(

Agelbert NOTE:
As you can see, the whole lawn thing was an egocentric exercise is status symbol bling, totally unrelated to functionality. Yes, the REALLY ORIGINAL "lawns", called "killing fields", might have started the idea of having a lawn in the first place.

 ( Castles had the fields cut short around them so they could more easily kill invading armies approaching the castle. They mowed the fields so they could mow down the attackers, so to speak.  (

Thirteenth Century Beaumaris Castle in Wales - fortifications and surrounding killing fields

Strictly speaking, a "Killing Filed" has a wall behind it as well as in front of it. But I am certain the land around a castle's outermost wall was also kept trimmed to aid in killing attackers. Now you know why fossil fuelers like such big lawns.  ;D

Killing fields

A killing field was an area between the main wall and a secondary wall, so when the first wall was breached the attackers would run into the killing field to be confronted by another wall from which soldiers bombarded them. Soldiers would be positioned atop the second wall and armed with any variety of weapons, ranging from bows to crossbows to simple rocks.

But lawns for homes was a rather stupid custom from the start (unless you are a narcissist, of course).

And then the internal combustion engine came along and added pollution damage to the stupidity and unsustainability of having a lawn.   (
... we compared the maximum pollution allowed by federal law for mowers versus cars, and assumed our benchmark grass cutter was a six-horsepower push mower operated at half throttle. We were interested in two types of pollutants: carbon monoxide, or CO, and hydrocarbons plus nitrogen oxides, which we’ll call HC+NOx.

Under current standards, in an hour a push mower will produce the same HC+NOx as a car driven 257 miles  >:(, and the same CO as one driven 401 miles. To put it another way, assuming a car averages 40 miles per hour, a gasoline powered push mower produces more HC+NOx than six cars and the same CO as 10.  (

Things will improve when federal emissions standards for lawn mowers are tightened in 2012. Under the new standards, a push mower may produce as much HC+NOx as a car driven 160 miles—in other words, one lawn mower would equal four cars.  (

Big deal, you say. I run my lawn mower 20 minutes a week. How much damage could I be doing? This is narrow thinking. Looking at the big picture, we realize mower emissions are only the beginning of what’s wrong with American lawn care. Consider:

• Estimates vary, but it’s likely Americans burn more than 600 million gallons of gas a year cutting the grass. Hell, the EPA estimates at least 17 million gallons of gasoline are spilled annually just filling lawn mowers.  (

• In 2009, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 86,000 injuries involving lawn mowers required a trip to the emergency room; in 6,400 of these cases the victim died or wound up hospitalized.  :(

But perhaps you remain blasé. Who needs all those toes? OK, one last point:

• In a time of dwindling water supplies, somewhere between a third to half of residential water use is for lawn and garden irrigation   (, and about half of that water is wasted by poor watering practices.  :P

Fact is, unless you’re a croquet fanatic, you don’t need all that grass. The green parts of the planet generally manage to stay green on their own.   (

My natural plantings look like weeds to you? Fine, be a Neanderthal. I’m just saying there’s another way. —Cecil Adams 

How Much Pollution Do Gasoline-Powered Lawn Mowers Cause? A lot, actually—so maybe you don't need that lawn.  ( (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 13, 2015, 12:15:26 am
Human Business as usual...  :(

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) actually has a name for Business as Usual. They have modeled it. They have a number for it. It's called the RCP-8.5.

I am preparing a three part article which provides scientific evidence that the RCP-8.5 scenario is too conservative. I cover what we can expect in the next 85 years or so.

Here's a graph to give you a sneak peak at the article contents:

Business as usual is a death sentence for over 75% (or more) of life on Earth.

Stay tuned for the article. you won't disappointed. The people that defend business as usual won't like it. Good.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 14, 2015, 12:00:52 am
Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns

A benchmark investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides in umbilical cord blood

Not long ago scientists thought that the placenta shielded cord blood — and the developing baby — from most chemicals and pollutants in the environment. But now we know that at this critical time when organs, vessels, membranes and systems are knit together from single cells to finished form in a span of weeks, the umbilical cord carries not only the building blocks of life, but also a steady stream of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol. This is the human "body burden" — the pollution in people that permeates everyone in the world, including babies in the womb.

In a study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red Cross after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage.

This study represents the first reported cord blood tests for 261 of the targeted chemicals and the first reported detections in cord blood for 209 compounds. Among them are eight perfluorochemicals used as stain and oil repellants in fast food packaging, clothes and textiles — including the Teflon chemical PFOA, recently characterized as a likely human carcinogen by the EPA's Science Advisory Board — dozens of widely used brominated flame retardants and their toxic by-products; and numerous pesticides.

Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. The dangers of pre- or post-natal exposure to this complex mixture of carcinogens, developmental toxins and neurotoxins have never been studied.

Chemicals and pollutants detected in human umbilical cord blood

class icon Mercury (Hg) - tested for 1, found 1
Pollutant from coal-fired power plants, mercury-containing products, and certain industrial processes. Accumulates in seafood. Harms brain development and function.

class icon Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - tested for 18, found 9
Pollutants from burning gasoline and garbage. Linked to cancer. Accumulates in food chain.

class icon Polybrominated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBDD/F) - tested for 12, found 7
Contaminants in brominated flame retardants. Pollutants and byproducts from plastic production and incineration. Accumulate in food chain. Toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system

class icon Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) - tested for 12, found 9
Active ingredients or breakdown products of Teflon, Scotchgard, fabric and carpet protectors, food wrap coatings. Global contaminants. Accumulate in the environment and the food chain. Linked to cancer, birth defects, and more.

class icon Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (PCDD/F) - tested for 17, found 11
Pollutants, by-products of PVC production, industrial bleaching, and incineration. Cause cancer in humans. Persist for decades in the environment. Very toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system.

class icon Organochlorine pesticides (OCs) - tested for 28, found 21
DDT, chlordane and other pesticides. Largely banned in the U.S. Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain, to man. Cause cancer and numerous reproductive effects.

class icon Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) - tested for 46, found 32
Flame retardant in furniture foam, computers, and televisions. Accumulates in the food chain and human tissues. Adversely affects brain development and the thyroid.

class icon Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (PCNs) - tested for 70, found 50
Wood preservatives, varnishes, machine lubricating oils, waste incineration. Common PCB contaminant. Contaminate the food chain. Cause liver and kidney damage.

class icon Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - tested for 209, found 147
Industrial insulators and lubricants. Banned in the U.S. in 1976. Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain, to man. Cause cancer and nervous system problems.

Source: Chemical analyses of 10 umbilical cord blood samples were conducted by AXYS Analytical Services (Sydney, BC) and Flett Research Ltd. (Winnipeg, MB). (

Thanks for everything, Big Oil.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2015, 06:21:56 pm

On September 18, indigenous community activist and teacher, Rigoberto Lima Choc, was murdered in northern Guatemala.   (

This happened just after a court upheld charges he filed denouncing massive pollution caused by a palm oil company called Reforestadora de Palma de Petén (REPSA).

On the same day, three indigenous community leaders – members of an ActionAid partner organization which had also supported the case – were kidnapped. These ActionAid partners were released after 12 hours of being threatened with being burned alive.

 >> Sign the petition to demand an immediate investigation and protection for the human rights activists involved in the case. (

 Rigoberto was shot outside of a courthouse, and the ActionAid partners kidnapped, just one day after a court ordered the palm oil company to suspend operations due to a huge spill of waste from its processing plant. He had been among the first to report the spill.

 >>  The Guatemalan authorities must conduct a full and impartial investigation into his death – sign the petition now. (

 The waste killed hundreds of thousands of fish in one of the largest environmental disasters in Guatemalan history, putting at risk the livelihoods of thousands of people in riverside communities.

 By reporting and denouncing the spill, Rigoberto did the only responsible thing. Next week, ActionAid’s Guatemalan partners will be here in the United States for a hearing before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights to demand justice for the loss of land and the harms caused to their communities by the massive expansion of oil palm plantations for use in processed foods and biofuels.

 >> Please show your support and sign our petition to demand justice for Rigoberto.  (  (

 Thanks for your support.

Doug Hertzler
 Senior Policy Analyst, ActionAid USA
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2015, 08:35:52 pm
Nnimmo Bassy and the British journalist sum it up at the end the following video. The entire culture of oil is a morally repugnant curse on human culture. The country of Nigeria became POORER after oil began to be exploited, not richer! The only real product of the oil culture, not just in Nigeria, but every place in the world, is ecocide.

Oil spills in Nigeria: The true price of crude oil | Guardian Investigations

Here's a recent video interview with Nnimmo Bassy on the MASSIVE level of oil pollution in Nigeria:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2015, 08:45:48 pm

Nnimmo Bassey on Justice for the Earth Community, "Keep the Oil in the Soil"

Nnimmo Bassy    ( discusses the modern biosphere destroying, greed based mechanism of Power without Responsibility for the exploiters and Exploitation with Redress for the people in the exploited areas.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 15, 2015, 09:04:01 pm
McPlanet: Keynote Nnimmo Bassey "Bilanz Rio 1992-2012"

( Bassy tells it like it IS in regard to FALSE solutions pushed by the "Business as Usual" defending, polluter, profit over people and planet corporations.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2015, 10:05:34 pm
Mercury said,
The whole edifice of BAU will supported until the very last day as there is no plan B. When it's all over there'll only be an ocean of dead bodies.  But it will be quick.

! (

Meanwhile the biochemical carnage from fracking continues doing what it does.

Death by Fracking

Posted on Oct 18, 2015

By Chris Hedges

DENVER—The maniacal drive by the human species to extinguish itself includes a variety of lethal pursuits. One of the most efficient is fracking. One day, courtesy of corporations such as Halliburton, BP and ExxonMobil, a gallon of water will cost more than a gallon of gasoline. Fracking, which involves putting chemicals into potable water and then injecting millions of gallons of the solution into the earth at high pressure to extract oil and gas, has become one of the primary engines, along with the animal agriculture industry, for accelerating global warming and climate change.

The Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers who are profiting from this cycle of destruction will—once clean water is scarce and crop yields decline, once temperatures soar and cities disappear under the sea, once droughts and famines ripple across the globe, once mass migrations begin—surely profit from the next round of destruction. Collective suicide is a good business, at least until it is complete. It is a pity most of us will not be around to see the power elite go down.


Resistance will be local. It will be militant. It will defy the rules imposed by the corporate state. It will turn its back on state and NGO environmental organizations. And it will not stop until corporate power is destroyed or we are destroyed.

“Forty years after the major environmental laws were adopted in the U.S., and 40 years after trying to regulate the damage caused by corporations to the natural environment and our communities, by almost every major environmental statistic things are worse now than they were before,” Thomas Linzey, the executive director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, told me recently.

The fracking industry is omnivorous, biologist Davis noted. It “is so intoxicated and bloated by greed that it has moved into our backyards, near our school playgrounds, our hospitals, universities, our day cares, our state parks, our national grasslands, and has its sights on the rest of our public lands across America unless we stop them,” he said.


It behooves us to understand what unfettered, unregulated corporate power looks like, how it operates and what levels of wholesale destruction it inflicts in the lust for profit on human beings and the environment. If we do not know how corporate power works, and the lengths it will travel to exploit us and the ecosystem, we will not be able to fight it. Both in theological terms and literally, these corporate forces are forces of death.
( (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2015, 02:53:09 am

"We can’t have a healthy business on a sick planet."-- Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy and outreach for Seventh Generation, Burlington, Vermont
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on October 30, 2015, 08:42:41 pm

New analysis reveals even more troubling news about Indonesia’s fires crisis.

Emissions from this year’s fires have reached 1.62 billion metric tons of CO2—bumping Indonesia from the sixth-largest emitter in the world up to the fourth-largest in  just six weeks.   
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2015, 02:42:07 am
PROOF the EPA CONTINUES to IGNORE the FACT that Fracking chemicals are POISONOUS to the ENVIRONMENT.Frackers have put BENZENE and several OTHER TOXIC/CARCINOGENIC chemicals in the ground all over the USA! ALL the CORRUPTION in this fu cking country is BECAUSE of the FOSSIL FUEL (CORPORATE) GOVERNMENT!

Tesimony Before EPA: Ray Kemble, Bryce Payne, Dr. Zacariah Hildenbrand, Hope Forpeace, Steve Lipsky
Published on Oct 29, 2015

Testimony of people impacted by fracking and Hugh MacMillan representing Food and Water Watch. Today in front of the EPA Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel. This is important information that was not included in the EPA fracking study released in June 2015.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2015, 02:58:55 pm

Fracking Companies Warned to Scale Back Operations Linked to Earthquakes or Get Sued

Agelbert COMMENT:
A NOTICE to sue!!?   (

This is rich! The frackers are poisoning land and people from California to Pennsylvania. The frackers are forcing Texas towns to NOT be able to ban fracking and coerce the EPA to ignore all the fracking legal double talk corruption and in-your-face damage to the health of Americans for the sake of Empathy Deficit disordered profit over people and planet.

And the frackers need to "notified" that they may be sued for some earthquakes!!? THE LEAST of the health damage from these BASTARDS is earthquakes!

If the CRIME against Americans that the EPA is aiding and abetting is not proof that we have a Fossil Fuel OWNED Government, I don't know what is. The term that is used for this 24/7 corruption of AND threats to Americans degrading democracy is "Regulatory Capture".

They have it BACKWARDS. The people selected to head ALL the agencies that "regulate" our environment and dirty energy, be it fossil fuels or nuclear, are FROM corporate dirty energy!

They just named a NUKE PUKE to the NREL (National Renewable energy Laboratory).

Dr. Martin Keller is a stalking horse for the new nuclear boondoggle of smaller, "safe and clean" (NOT!) nuclear power technology for your neighborhood. Have a nice nuclear day. (

Not ONE WEEK after his naming, a layoff of workers in SOLAR RESEARCH is announced. THAT's how it "works", people! (

NREL cutting four percent of workforce, lays off solar researchers (

It might have been "regulatory Capture" in the Reagan Administration. But now, please KNOW that it's "CYA for Dirty energy ALL THE WAY".

What really Happened at the EPA (

And don't expect the courts to do ANYTHING to help Americans experiencing poisoning form fracking. The courts are part of the FOSSIL FUEL GOVERNMENT.

The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL Court System is its HANDMAIDEN (

Learned ethics free  counselor tell us how Exxon did what they did, as if that's just fine and dandy: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Vol. 18:151 The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 04, 2015, 06:01:31 pm
I am so NOT shocked by this news.  (

11/04/2015 12:33 PM       

Blockbuster Climate News: China Seriously Under-Reports Emissions News


In a major setback for climate calculations, China quietly revealed it has been under-reporting carbon emissions since 2001, to the tune of 17%.

That increases China's already colossal emissions by nearly a billion tons a year - equal to Germany's total annual emissions, reports the NY Times. That's a big number for a country that contributes 28% of global emissions.

 While this certainly makes China's promise to peak emissions by 2030 much more daunting, it also makes it more urgent.

"This helps to explain why China's air quality is so poor, and that will make it easier to get national leaders to take this seriously," Yang Fuqiang, a former Chinese energy official, told the NY Times.

The gap mostly comes from small companies and factories in heavy industries, such as steel and cement, not power plants, and is highest in the most recent years. It was discovered during the 2013 census of the economy, but economists have long-questioned the accuracy of China's data.

 In the late 1990s, for example, the government ordered the dirtiest small coal plants to close, but many simply stopped reporting altogether. 

 Not only will China have to adjust its data on emissions and reassess its renewable energy goals, the data affects worldwide forecasts of climate change. Estimates are that China's emissions have been 4-11% higher than reported.

Moving to Renewable Energy  (

Will China still peak emissions by 2030, but at much higher levels? Many people expect China's emissions to peak by 2025 because overall, coal consumption is down for the first time over the past two years.

China Coal Use Trends Down (graphic at link)

But China made no commitment after 2030 - after emissions peak, how long will it take for them to significantly decline? Decades, say many people.   (

The key is how quickly energy efficient and renewable technologies grow. The cheaper they are, the less attractive coal is.

"China has negative GDP growth if you factor in the healthcare costs of overreliance on coal,"
said Christopher Frei, secretary general of the World Energy Council.

Indeed, the pressure to significantly reduce air pollution as well as greenhouse gases means that China can't continue relying on coal. By 2050, it's feasible for China to get 60% of all energy from renewables and 85% of electricity, says the China National Renewable Energy Center.

After decades of growth-at-all-costs, last year, China announced it would prioritize the environment over the economy, and this year, it extended the ban on burning coal to include suburbs as well as the largest city centers.  The goal is for 60% of cities to meet national pollution standards (three do now) by 2020.   

One big question for scientists to answer is where the extra carbon gases went - most likely into the ocean.  :P China's gaff doesn't affect the total world emissions - that is directly measured from the atmosphere.  ;)

Read our article, Coal Boom Finally Ends.

Agelbert NOTE: If you think we are getting honest emissions reporting in the USA, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. And remember friends, ALL the IPCC scenarios are based on, uh, REPORTED emissions over the past quarter century. They then take the REPORTED emissions and project the alleged effect on temperature and sea level and ice retreat. THAT is why they are so ridiculously WRONG (on the wishful thinking, dirty energy using, GDP defending status quo side) in ALL their scenarios, INCLUDING the "Business as Usual" (their term, not mine!) RCP-8.5 scenario.    (

I'm certain that this news does not shock Doomstead Diner RE  either.  ;D

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 20, 2015, 12:01:24 am
If acidification causes pteropods to die off, a crucial food source for many organisms such as salmon and whales will be gone.

Q&A With Claudine Hauri on her Work in the Southern Ocean

Posted On November 19, 2015 by Sage Melcer

Ocean Conservancy spoke with Claudine Hauri about her publication this week in Nature Climate Change on the future impacts of ocean acidification on the Southern Ocean, the body of water surrounding Antarctica and the southern tip of South America. Claudine is a postdoctoral fellow at the International Pacific Research Center of the University of Hawaii and Research Assistant Professor at the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and focuses on how physical, chemical and biological systems influence variability of ocean acidification and carbon cycling in the ocean.

[bQ: What does your study show about ocean health?[/b]

A: We found that over the next several decades, ocean acidification will quickly change the chemistry of the Southern Ocean so that pteropods, small snails that are important to the marine food web, may struggle to form their shells. Our results suggest that the duration of conditions that are harmful to pteropods may increase abruptly from one month to more than six months in less than 20 years upon their onset. Given that we expect these conditions to get worse, it’s uncertain whether pteropods can adapt.

Q: How does this research fit into your previous work?

A: My previous work analyzes how ocean acidification may change the intensity, duration and frequency of such harmful conditions along the U.S. West Coast. There, the seawater is naturally enriched with CO2 due to seasonal upwelling of deep, CO2-rich water. Ocean acidification over the last few decades has pushed the seawater closer to becoming harmful for pteropods. As a result, they have to expend more energy to fight dissolution and are exposed to increased risk of mortality and infection. If acidification causes pteropods to die off, a crucial food source for many organisms such as salmon and whales will be gone.

Q: How did you come to focus on ocean acidification in the Southern Ocean for your most recent publication?

A: The Southern Ocean and the U.S. West Coast have a lot in common. Just like the waters along the West Coast, the Southern Ocean is naturally closer to the threshold critical for pteropod survival, and these tiny sea snails also play an important role in the food web. So I decided to look at the Southern Ocean a little closer and get a better understanding of how long and where these ecologically important tiny sea snails may be exposed to harmful conditions over the next century.

Q: What would you most like people to know about your research?

A: Ocean acidification is on the brink of threatening many of our marine ecosystems. The only way to mitigate this risk is to make immediate and significant reductions in our carbon dioxide emissions.

To learn more about the future impacts of ocean acidification on the Southern Ocean, you can find Claudine’s complete study here (at link below); along with a video she produced on her research.
Posted in Science & Conservation | Tagged Antarctica, Claudine Hauri, climate change, ice, ocean acidification, Sage Melcer, Southern Ocean

About Sage Melcer

Sage Melcer is a Research Assistant, and provides scientific research support for a wide variety of programs at Ocean Conservancy. Born and raised on the California coast, she spent her entire life learning as much as she could about ocean creatures, from whale watching to exploring local tide pools. After spending the first twenty years of her life in and around the Pacific ocean, she's recently transplanted to DC to share her love of the ocean with our nation's capital.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 20, 2015, 09:06:48 pm
This City is the World’s First to Mandate Climate Change Warning Labels on Gas Pumps(

Cole Mellino | November 20, 2015 2:14 pm

What if every time you fueled up at your local gas station, you were reminded that the world’s addiction to oil contributes to climate change? Would it change your habits? The city of North Vancouver, British Columbia is hoping so. The city council voted unanimously earlier this week to approve mandatory climate change labels on gas pumps.

This is one of the warning labels proposed by the nonprofit Our Horizon. Photo credit: Our Horizon

It’s a “historic global first,” said Rob Shirkey, the founder of the nonprofit Our Horizon which lobbied for the law. He told CBC News that “other Canadian and American cities have come close by supporting similar initiatives, but the city of North Vancouver is the first to make it mandatory.” San Francisco, Berkeley and Seattle have all recently considered instituting warning labels.

The city council still has to approve designs for the stickers, which they are hoping to do by early next year. Once they do, they will require gas pumps to have them as part of a business license. City staff are currently working on pitching ideas for the exact message of the sticker. City officials don’t think that residents of North Vancouver are going to just abandon their cars overnight, but they’re hoping it will shift the way they think about climate change.

“[The goal] is not to have someone drop the pump and walk away from the vehicle,” Shirkey explained. “We have a habitual automatic downstream behavior—we don’t think about pumping gas. We all say in Canada, ‘shame on Alberta, shame on tar sands,’ but by pointing finger up-stream, we distance ourselves from the problem. We’re providing most of the demand for that product.”

In other words, they’re hoping the stickers remind residents of their own complicity in causing climate change and start to change people’s behavior. It’s important to offer “pragmatic solutions an ordinary person could implement,” said North Vancouver Mayor Darrell Mussatto.

“The message is that burning fossil fuels causes climate change and … to add a positive spin, here are some tips when using your automobile on how to make it more fuel efficient,” Mussatto added. “I couldn’t live without my vehicle, but I can certainly reduce the number of trips I do use it for.”

Shirkey cautioned, though, that the city shouldn’t “shy away from negative messaging” too much. He said it’s been an effective strategy for health warnings on cigarettes. “If it’s too positive, which is what the industry is advocating for, then we’re avoiding the problem and not addressing the issue of climate change,” Shirkey said.

The stickers will cost the city between $3,000 and $5,000 to make. Here are some sample messages from a city staff report:  (

•Benefits of active transportation: “Walking has zero GHG emissions and improves your health”

•Electric vehicle incentives: “Get $5,000 towards a purchase of a new electric car”

•B.C. Scrap-It program: “Trade in your clunker for a transit pass worth $1,360”

•Facts about vehicle idling: “Idling your vehicle for more than 10 seconds wastes more gas than restarting your engine”

•Facts about climate change: “Burning fossil fuel contributes to climate change”

Our Horizon also offered some ideas: (  (




Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 21, 2015, 03:22:25 pm
11/18/2015 04:01 PM   

Oil Industry Cringes As Another Tar Sands Pipeline is Blocked News

In one of his first moves as Canada's Prime Minister, Trudeau effectively blocked the Northern Gateway pipeline, closing off another route to export tar sands oil.

 He banned tankers that carry crude oil along the north coast of British Columbia, where the Enbridge's pipeline would deliver the oil.

 The decision protects the ecologically sensitive coast from becoming an industrial zone where hundreds of dangerous tankers would have traveled each year.  Two pipelines would have carried 525,000 barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to the coast every day, winding their way across critical salmon habitat in rivers and through coastal rainforests.

Enbridge, of course, still plans to move forward on the pipeline, noting that it's being doing a good job of convincing First Nations and other citizens of its value. 

Former Prime Minister Harper approved the project last year, ignoring widespread protests and blockades. It is currently in appeals court where First Nations and environmental groups are asking for the project to be repealed. 

Tar Sands Northern Gateway Pipeline

The great news comes after President Obama officially rejected the Keystone pipeline earlier this month.

 Options for exporting tar sands oil are becoming fewer by the day.  (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2015, 03:27:09 am
Green Technologies Lead to Clear Waters

Posted by Guest Blogger in Ocean Views on November 23, 2015
By: Annie Reisewitz and Sarah Martin

Coho salmon once flourished throughout the North Pacific, from Monterey Bay in central California up to Alaska’s Point Hope and across to Russia and Japan. Today many of those populations are extinct. With less than 10 percent of their historic population left, this iconic species holds an intrinsic economic, recreational, and cultural value. And yet, the remaining coho salmon populations continue to be threatened with extinction today.

Photo courtesy Reuven Walder, SPAWN/Marine Photobank.

The recent front-page story in the Seattle Times aptly illustrated the deadly effects of runoff from urban roadway on coho salmon. Salmon are entering polluted rivers and dying in as little as 2 ½ hours, before they ever have a chance to spawn.

These salmon are the ‘canaries in the coal mine’ and certainly not the only fish irreversibly damaged by pollutant-filled runoff. We are choking our marine life to death with a coc ktail of toxic metals, pesticides and used motor oil, the main ingredients in storm-water runoff. Storm-water runoff is the number one cause of water pollution in urban areas.

A recent lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Center forced the Environmental Protection Agency to finally act on a decade-old court order. They are required to update national regulations to protect our waterways from urban runoff by November 2016.

These new U.S. EPA regulations must take a holistic approach to ensure we fully protect our salmon and other living ecosystems and not simply band-aid the problem. First, by preventing the toxins from entering our urban storm system through green technology approaches and, second, by encouraging green infrastructures to filter out any toxins before they make it to our waterways.

For example, over 40 percent of the pollution in America’s waterways is from used motor oil.  (  At 385 million gallons per year, it’s the single largest source of oil pollution in U.S. harbor and waterways. By far the greatest cause of oil in our waterways comes from urban street runoff, much of which is from improper disposal of engine oil.

The U.S. EPA reports that over 200 million gallons of motor oil are tossed in the trash, spilled on the ground or poured down drains and sewers annually. These ‘silent oil spills’ eventually end up in our waterways, as rainwater or as melting snow carried to the nearest water body.

In 2014, U.S. sales in hybrid and plug-in vehicles were just over 570,000. Compare this with the nearly eight million new cars sold that same year, not including all the trucks and buses on our roadways. We are a long way from completely removing motor oil from our lives.

The U.S. EPA uses the term ‘environmentally acceptable lubricant’ to describe motor oils that meet standards for biodegradability, toxicity and bioaccumulation. These oils minimize the likelihood of adverse consequences in the aquatic environment, compared to petroleum-based lubricants, which are highly toxicity to marine life.

According to the U.S. EPA “using alternative products instead of toxic substances drastically reduces the presence of toxics in storm water and receiving waters.” Petroleum-based motor oil is a known toxic substance and a known hazardous waste product.

Mineral oils, like petroleum, have a high potential for bioaccumulation and a measureable toxicity toward marine organisms. In contrast, bio-based oils derived from renewable sources such as algae or plants degrade faster, do not bioaccumulate, and have a near zero toxicity to marine organisms.  (

Knowing this, shouldn’t we act to make the oil in our cars greener too? One green technology approach is replacing the petrochemical toxins found in motor oil with environmentally friendly alternatives.

The U.S. EPA recently mandated the use of ‘environmentally acceptable lubricants’ for any vessel in the waters of the United States under the vessel general permit, an encouraging effort to regulate motor oil discharge from vessels under the Clean Water Act. A similar EPA standard should be in place for automotive motor oils that is used for ocean-going vessels.

With fewer pollutants entering our waterways, we can ensure the green infrastructure solutions, such as organic gardening, permeable pavements, and green roofs, can do the job of filtering out any remaining pesticides, toxic metals or nutrients into waterways.

More used motor oil is illegally dumped every year then from the BP oil spill. We need to listen to the ‘canaries in the water’ and work together to save the salmon and effectively tackle the urban runoff problem through increased public awareness, green infrastructures and clean technologies.


About the authors:

 Annie Reisewitz is a communications and marketing consultant for environmental and green technology initiatives. She manages the Silent Oil Spills public awareness campaign.

Sarah Martin has worked in environmental communications for the past several years. She works on the Silent Oil Spills campaign.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 01, 2015, 10:18:28 pm
Racing Extinction

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 03, 2015, 07:20:22 pm
Teflon’s Toxic LegacyFor more than half a century DuPont hid information that a chemical it was using to make Teflon might be making people sick

Agelbert NOTE: Learn about C8, a toxic carcinogenic compound that bioaccumulates, that is NOW present in the blood of over 98% of all Americans (and other life forms all over the planet!). Learn how the EPA has done it's level best to KEEP the truth about C8 from the public AND lower the liability for disease, death and birth defects caused by the profit over people and planet GREED of DuPont.   (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2015, 10:41:51 pm

12/04/2015 12:12 PM     
Income Inequality = Climate Inequality, Says Oxfam News

In the US, one of the major themes in our presidential campaign is income inequality between the richest 1% and the rest of our citizens.  Not suprisingly, this theme also applies to climate change.

Oxfam's new report - released at COP21 - lays bare "climate-change inequality": the world's richest 1% are also the biggest polluters by far, producing 175 times the carbon emissions as people in the bottom 10% of income.

The richest 10% are responsible for half the world's emissions, while the poorest half - roughly 3.5 billion people - produce only 10% of all emissions.

Income inequality

And the poor are - and will - be most negatively affected by climate change. They can't move to safer ground or even insulate their homes the way rich people can. They tend to live in countries with the least capacity to adapt.

"Climate change and economic inequality are inextricably linked and together pose one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century," says Tim Gore of Oxfam.

Another report, "Carbon and Inequality: From Kyoto to Paris" comes to the same conclusion. "It is the rich Europeans, Americans and Chinese that emit the most carbon, while the emissions from the world's poorest citizens are falling. The richest 1% of Americans, Luxembourgers, Singaporeans and Saudis emit more than 200 tonnes of carbon per person per year; 2,000 times more than the poorest in Honduras, Rwanda or Malawi," says author French economist Thomas Piketty (who wrote the best seller, "Capital"). 

Both Oxfam and Pikkety conclude the rich should be held accountable for emissions, no matter where they live. 

Oxfam points out that the super rich in developing countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa have
 high and rapidly rising emissions, but are still "behind" their advanced country counterparts .. and they will soon catch up. 

 Oxfam says:

"While the richest citizens can and should contribute as individuals to cutting their own emissions through lifestyle changes, wherever they live, they can't solve the climate crisis through voluntary action alone. Their choices are often constrained by the decisions of their governments in all sorts of areas, from energy to transport policy.

 "Without question, a weak agreement in Paris is no more in their interests than it is in the interests of the poorest and least responsible. Increasingly members of the richest 10% are experiencing the impacts of climate change themselves, and are mobilizing to demand action from their governments.

"The only beneficiaries of inadequate climate action in Paris and beyond are a much smaller elite with vested interests in the continuation of a high carbon and deeply unequal global economy.

The number of billionaires with interests in fossil fuel activities has risen from 54 n 2010 to 88 in 2015, while the size of their combined personal fortunes has expanded by around 50% from over $200 billion to more than $300 billion."

Green Climate Fund

Perhaps you can understand then, why poor nations demand financial assistance from advanced nations, which are responsible for the lion's share of emissions.

Poor nations haven't caused the problem
but they are most vulnerable to it. They need help to adapt so their people can live.

And the world can't afford ANY more emissions, so developing countries must get assistance to leap frog to renewable energy instead of using coal. 

Therefore, a major goal of COP21 is to get the financing established to do this, instead of allowing a conflict between rich and poor to derail an international agreement as it has done in the past. 

Accelerating natural disasters already impacts hundreds of millions of people a year. The Rockefeller Foundation estimates that $1 out of every $3 spent on development is lost to these recurring crises - a total $3.8 trillion worldwide. Resilient societies would suffer less and recover more quickly.

So far at COP21, initiatives adding up to $1 billion have been mobilized:

•a coalition will develop early warning systems for over 50 of the least developed countries and small island states by 2020: Climate Risks and Early Warning Systems (CREWS).

•Provide access to insurance to 400 million vulnerable people in 5 years: G7 InsuResilience Initiative.

•Great Green Wall for the Sahara and Sahel Initiative: a wall of trees is being planted across the southern edge of the Sahara desert - across the African continent - to prevent desertification from advancing. It reinvigorates soil and brings back ecosystems, improving food security and rural communities. The World Bank will invest $2.2 billion.

•Global Resilience Partnership is raising funds to invest in innovative resilience measures over the next five years, starting in areas in Africa and Southeast Asia.

•"A2R" (Anticipate, Absorb, Reshape) will build climate resilience in the world's most vulnerable countries by strengthening their ability to anticipate hazards, absorb shocks by increasing insurance and social protection coverage, and reshape development to reduce climate risks. It will address the needs of nearly 634 million people who live in risk-prone coastal areas and areas at risk from droughts and floods.

Read Oxfam's report, "Extreme Carbon Inequality": 


Agelbert NOTE: Not that I haven't been saying the above for over three years now, but it is nice to have hard data to back me up. So, REPEAT AFTER ME: 50% of the poorest humans do 10% of the environmental damage. RESPONSIBILITY to ameliorate climate change goes to the people doing the lion's share of the damage, PERIOD. 

The 1%'s Responsibility to Shoulder 80% of the COST of a 100% Renewable Energy World with a Viable Biosphere for ALL Earthlings. (

Talk that blames the poor people because they "have too many babies" is irresponsible, as well as being IRRELEVANT. But it is an excellent method of avoiding confronting reality.  >:(
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2015, 10:07:48 pm


"A Rogue Company": Leading Glaciologist on Exxon's Climate Change Cover-Up

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2015, 10:18:23 pm
A Rogue country.  >:(

Message from Uncle Sam to the world  :evil4:
At COP21, U.S. Allows Mention of Climate Reparations -- Only If It Doesn't Have to Pay Them
December 11, 2015


The United States will allow the words "loss and damage" in the Paris accords only if it is agreed that the U.S. is not liable for paying for it. "Loss and damage" refers to compensation for countries already suffering from the impacts of climate change caused by more industrialized nations. We discuss the role of the U.S., China and other major countries at COP21 on this issue and on REDD, a mechanism meant to stem deforestation in countries such as Indonesia. "REDD is labeled as a solution to the climate crisis," says Ruth Nyambura, Kenyan political ecologist, part of the African Ecofeminist Collective. "But it has given polluting countries in the developed world, and corporations, the ability to say, 'I will continue to pollute as long as I pay for forest rehabilitation in the Global South.'" (

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 11, 2015, 10:33:24 pm
We are Sacrifice Zones: Native Leader Says Toxic North Dakota Fracking Fuels Violence Against Women

December 11, 2015 Story


"What we’re dealing with is a death by a thousand cuts," says North Dakota indigenous leader Kandi Mossett of the impact of the booming fracking and oil-drilling industry in her home state. "We’ve had violence against women increase by 168 percent, particularly in the area of ****," Mossett says. "We have 14-, 15- and 16-year-old girls that are willingly going into man camps [for oil workers] and selling themselves." She says the full impact of toxins from oil drilling won’t be felt for another 20 years. "I’m so worried that at this COP21 my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter won’t have a say, but she will be experiencing the worst impacts. It just doesn’t make any sense to me that this is the 21st COP and we are considered sacrifice zones in my community."
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on December 20, 2015, 02:31:13 am

Hundreds of whales found dead in Chile   (

More than 300 whales have been found washed up in a remote inlet in Patagonia in southern Chile in one of the largest die-offs on record.

Posted 02 Dec 2015 14:09

SANTIAGO: More than 300 whales have been found washed up in a remote inlet in Patagonia in southern Chile in one of the largest die-offs on record, researchers said Tuesday.

"It was an apocalyptic sight. I'd never seen anything like it," said one of the scientists who made the discovery, Vreni Haussermann of the Huinay Scientific Center.

Scientists launched an expedition to count the animals after 20 sei whales were reported dead in April, beached in an extremely remote region some 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) south of the capital Santiago.

When the researchers flew over the region in June, they found the scale of the die-off was much larger: at least 337 dead whales, "including bodies and skeletons," said Haussermann.

"There are still a lot of areas we haven't managed to reach, so it's likely there are more dead whales," she told AFP.

The die-off, the biggest single event of its kind known to science, will be investigated in an upcoming issue of National Geographic magazine, which funded the expedition.

Scientists initially said the whales did not bear any wounds, suggesting they may have died of a virus or a harmful algal bloom known as "red tide."

The gruesome find comes as countries get down to tough negotiations at crunch talks in Paris, which are seeking a pact to curb climate change.

Marine biologists say the warming of the world's oceans is putting dangerous pressure on whale populations by killing off their food supply and changing their age-old migratory routes.

- AFP/jb
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 01, 2016, 02:16:38 pm
Randy Eresman, CEO, EnCana Corp. (archive photo)

Hey, we like to Frack! If you don't like it, tough luck for you!  (

The "ethics" of Frackers:
“You sign a release of Encana and all of its affiliates from and against any and all claims, actions, causes of action, damages, losses (including but not limited to loss of income and loss of business) and expenses.”    (


Earth Island Journal
Battling Big Oil in Alberta (

When Jessica Ernst discovered that her community’s drinking water had been contaminated by fracking, she decided to sue energy giant EnCana.


Near the end of the summer, Encana invited Rosebud residents to a day of golf and theater. The occasion, the invitation said, would give “Rosebud residents and Encana employees” a chance “to mix, mingle and get to know each other in a relaxing and casual atmosphere.” After a game on the green, the minglers would watch a Rosebud Theatre production of The Village of Idiots. To Ernst, the whole thing sounded like a corporate PR ploy to “come on down, play golf with the devil and shut up.” Another three CBM wells had been drilled north of her property. Given the incessant noise from the drilling and the compressors, Ernst replied to Encana’s invitation tartly.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 05, 2016, 06:58:13 pm
How Corporate Greed Caused the Massive CA Methane Leak

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Jan. 5, 2016 1:00 pm

If you don't live on the West Coast of the United States, you might not have heard about the massive natural gas well leak that's been venting natural gas into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100,000 pounds per hour for over two months.

Infrared video that the Environmental Defense Fund captured in December shows that the natural gas is billowing like a volcano just above Burbank, California, on a hilltop in the Aliso Canyon area.

That video was taken over a month after the leak started on October 23, after the well had already ejected an estimated 80,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere.

For perspective, 80,000 tons of methane is equal to about a quarter of what the entire state of California - which is the 8th largest economy in the entire world - emitted between October 23 and November 20 in 2015.

And methane, which is what's mostly in "Natural Gas," is actually a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term, during the first 20 years it's in the atmosphere it can be up to 80 times more potent than CO2.

According to the Washington Post, the impact of the gases that have already been released from this one volcanic leak are equivalent to the impact, over 20 years, of six coal-fired power plants - or 7 million automobiles.

But this leak isn't just a crisis for the climate, it has also forced the evacuation of 1700 homes in nearby neighborhoods, the closing of two schools, and countless residents have reported that the stench has made them ill.

So how did all this happen?

Engineers are speculating that a 7-inch pipe ruptured about 500 feet below the surface, but they won't know for sure until they are able to seal the well off completely, something which the Southern California Gas Company says may not happen until March.

But according to a recent report from the LA Times and a lawsuit from local residents, the initial leak isn't what made this an environmental disaster for the history books.

No, the real problem here goes way back to 1979, when the Southern California Gas Company had the original safety valve removed from the gas well, and then simply didn't bother to replace it.  :evil4:

Mind you, it's not like the well was new in 1979 - it was already a quarter of a century old in 1979 - and 36 years after the company cut that corner, the well finally ruptured at 61 years old.

A spokeswoman told the LA Times that they didn't replace the safety valve simply because the company wasn't required to by law. (

So the company simply didn't replace the safety valve, because the profit motive of a corporation means that it has no incentive - no motivation - to protect anyone or anything that it isn't required to protect by law.

And because the company didn't replace the valve, the company estimates that it could be another 3 months before they can plug the well completely.  (

This is a case where corporate greed and lax regulations have caused a massive disruption in California's energy infrastructure and forced the evacuation of thousands of homes - and it's seriously jeopardized any emissions cuts that California has achieved over the last few years.

And none of it would have happened if we hadn't handed the management of our energy infrastructure over to largely deregulated for-profit corporations that only care about their bottom lines.

Civics has fallen by the wayside in American education, but this case makes it clear that it's time to have a real civic conversation about private and public goods, and about where private ownership ends and where the public commons begin.

This natural gas leak isn't just an environmental disaster - it's an atmospheric catastrophe like we've never really seen before.

Thousands of people have been displaced from their homes, their communities forced to scatter, and the climate has been put even further in jeopardy - just because a for-profit company wasn't required to replace the safety valve on their aging well.

This example proves the importance of treating our nation's energy infrastructure as a part of the Commons.

To do that, we need strict regulations - including enforcement mechanism including fines and jail for executives - that dissuade corporations from cutting corners at the expense of communities and the environment.

And we need to lift the liability cap that allows fossil fuel companies to only pay a fraction of the damages ( ( they cause to communities and to the environment.

It's time to start treating the Commons as something owned by every taxpayer and to be preserved for future generations, instead of something to be exploited for present private profits and left as trash for the taxpayers to pay for and future generations to clean up.

When asked about all the above, the fossil fuel worshipping defenders of the "fiduciary capitalist duty" of corporations (ESPECIALLY, but not limited to, upstream, downstream and integrated fossil fuel corporations) to "externalize" any and all costs, REGARDLESS of the responsibility of their "business model" for CAUSING the costs, say, uh, see below:


But this is what these ethics challenged BASTARDS REALLY THINK:

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 06, 2016, 09:47:47 pm

Porter Ranch Residents Flee, Schools Close as Natural Gas Storage Facility Continues to Spew Toxic Chemicals

Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, Natural Resources Defense Council | January 6, 2016 10:01 am


As the natural gas storage facility in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles continues to spew gas for nearly three months, the human face of this environmental disaster becomes even more pressing.

As of Tuesday, close to 2,000 residents have been evacuated, two schools closed and the health department has linked hundreds of health complaints from nausea and vomiting to headaches and respiratory problems to two chemicals in the gas.

Agelbert COMMENT:
I went to the California government web site on the methane leak and what they are allegedly doing about it. It consist of mostly happy talk about "VOC not at hazardous levels", even though they ADMIT that Benzene, a KNOWN carcinogen, is spewing out of the well. They are into full PR damage control mode ON BEHALF of the frackers that did this, NOT on behalf of the people of Los Angeles County.   >:(

They are lying BIG TIME about the respiratory and carcinogenic toxin damage being done. The web site says NOTHING about the sulfides (mercaptans and such that smell bad but are considered "harmless" even though they give people headache and nausea - for some strange reason...). In fact, hydrogen sulfide (that rotten eggs smell component in natural gas wells and a large component of this leak, is a KNOWN toxin and health hazard above certain concentrations).

And to top this off, the LAW limits the LIABILITY of these Fossil Fuel Frackers responsible for this disastrous blowout! What is it going to take for us to realize how much the fossil fuel dirty energy welfare queens have corrupted our government and our laws while the degraded the biosphere!!!?

The blowout will continue until MARCH of this year! Methane is 86 time more powerful as a GHG than CO2! That means the pollution from that well is equivalent to that of 7,000,000 cars by the time they plug it!

Full details here:

How Corporate Greed Caused the Massive CA Methane Leak (

And the fossil fuel welfare queen crooks and liars say .....


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 11, 2016, 09:46:50 pm
Anthony --

 Thank you for signing my Porter Ranch emergency petition. Please forward this email on to others who may want to sign.


 Here's the full petition:

President Obama: Declare The Porter Ranch Gas Leak A National Disaster

"Dear President Obama: Declare Los Angeles County to be a national disaster area due to the massive fracked gas leak at the SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility."

I’m Richard Mathews and I live within smelling distance of the fracked natural gas leak that has been spewing methane and toxins into the Los Angeles air since at least October 23, coming from an underground storage area above the suburb of Porter Ranch and holding fracked natural gas imported from other states. The company responsible is Southern California Gas, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy.

I live four miles from the site of this toxic disaster—the largest natural gas leak in U.S. history—and can smell the nasty fumes. But it’s even worse for people like my 88-year-old mother, who lives with me and is suffering from headaches and nausea but who feels she is too old to handle relocation. Thousands of families have fled their homes, and many more are still getting sick. Others like my mother are on the waiting list to get air purifiers. The leak isn't expected to be fixed until Halliburton completes drilling a relief well around March.

Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas contributing to rapid warming—over 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The greenhouse impact of this leak is the equivalent of the pollution from seven million cars or six coal-fired power plants. I’ve calculated that this leak spews more gas, by volume, into the atmosphere than the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster leaked oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

That global disaster troubles climate hawks like me. But equally worrisome, methane is highly explosive, and the chemicals mixed with the methane are making people sick. These include methyl mercaptan (the rotten-egg-smell they add to natural gas), benzene, radon, hydrogen sulfide, and a mist of crude oil. While the methane spreads around the world, these toxins stay close to the ground and accumulate in our valley.

On January 6, California Gov. Jerry Brown dropped by for an hour and declared it a disaster. Now, President Obama needs to meet with affected residents, understand the havoc wreaked by his pro-fracking policy, and declare the site a national disaster area.

President Obama’s national disaster declaration will help residents get tax benefits, mortgage relief, and federal resources to improve health—and help this nation to start fighting back against the out-of-control fracking industry.

Please add your name to mine today.

"Dear President Obama: Declare Los Angeles County to be a national disaster area due to the massive fracked gas leak at the SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility."

 Sign here: (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 14, 2016, 10:37:54 pm

Environment IS Life

 Are environmental rights as important as human rights?

Yes they are.

 When people's health and livelihoods are destroyed because of an environment that has become toxic, barren, and sterile the battle is one and the same.

 In this video we meet Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Ecuadorian lawyer representing 30,000 small farmers and indigenous people in a lawsuit against Chevron. After beginning oil extraction in 1964, the rivers and soil became toxic to the point where hundreds if not thousands of people died from cancer and leukemia. Two tribes became completely extinct. It resulted in an enormous and ongoing humanitarian crisis.

 Deforestation is another way to destroy a people.

 Damage to the eco system IS damage to the lives of the people closest to it.

 This is not any less serious than what we traditionally consider shocking and unacceptable violations of human rights. Let's make the connection clear.

 --Bibi Farber

- See more at:

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 16, 2016, 06:03:11 pm
3 Reasons Big Coal Had a Bad Week  (

Sierra Club | January 16, 2016 9:59 am

Here are three reasons Big Coal had a bad week:

1. Sec. of the Interior Sally Jewell
announced Friday that the Obama Administration will be putting an immediate suspension on all future and modified coal leases in order to create time and space to fully review the program for its consequences for taxpayers, our environment and the climate. The announcement followed President Obama’s groundbreaking statement in the State of the Union that he would “push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.”

2. Arch Coal, Inc., the second largest coal supplier
in the U.S., announced Monday that it would be filing for bankruptcy after suffering several quarters of losses and being unable to restructure its debt. Arch Coal Inc. added its name to a list of nearly 50 coal companies that have filed for bankruptcy since 2012 (including Patriot Coal, Walter Energy Inc. and James River Coal Co.), according to an analysis by SNL energy.

3. Governor Cuomo announced that New York state will phase out coal completely by 2020
. We’ve seen this trend picking up globally over the past few months, as the UK and the province of Alberta in Canada have also recently announced their plans to completely phase out coal. And as the Washington Post points out, clean energy is on the rise.

“A profound shift is happening right now in America’s energy landscape,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said. “One-third of the nation’s coal plants are slated for retirement due to grassroots advocacy, public demand, and increased competition from clean, renewable energy like solar and wind becoming more affordable and more accessible by the day. The markets, the public and our elected officials are increasingly recognizing this transition, making decisions that hit the accelerator on the transition from dirty fuels toward an economy powered by clean energy that works for all.”
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 18, 2016, 06:52:32 pm
Porter Ranch Methane Leak Spreads Across LA’s San Fernando Valley  :P
Lorraine Chow | January 15, 2016 9:36 am

It now looks like the catastrophic Porter Ranch gas leak, which has spewed more than 83,000 metric tons of noxious methane for nearly three months, has spread across Los Angeles’s San Fernando Valley.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles City Councilman Mitchell Englander called on the Southern California Gas Co. to extend residential relocation assistance to residents in Granada Hills, Chatsworth and Northridge who live near the Aliso Canyon gas leak above Porter Ranch. These residents reported symptoms related to the exposure of natural gas such as nausea, vomiting, headaches and respiratory problems.

The researchers have developed the Valley’s first comprehensive map of methane exposure. Photo credit: HEET

This latest development compounds with a new analysis from Home Energy Efficiency Team (HEET). The Cambridge-based nonprofit sent Boston University Professor Nathan Phillips and Bob Ackley of Gas Safety to take methane measurements around the San Fernando Valley for several days and their findings were disturbing.

As the Los Angeles Daily News wrote, “the researchers recorded elevated levels of the main ingredient in natural gas—10 miles away from the nation’s largest gas leak.”

“It’s not just in Porter Ranch, it’s going all the way across the [San Fernando] Valley,” Ackley told Inside Climate News.
According to HEET, the researchers drove a high precision GIS-enabled natural gas analyzer down the roads around the gas leak to create a comprehensive map of the leak around San Fernando Valley. The red on the map indicates where they drove and the levels of methane they found is shown by the height of the peaks.

Their monitors showed methane levels at 3.4 parts per billion, about twice the level of natural clean air, the Los Angeles Daily News reported. Another measurement showed 127 ppm, or an astounding 67 times above normal.

“Whatever else may be in the gas—benzene (, toluene (, xylene ( is what people may be breathing,” Phillips told Inside Climate News. “Even though we’re not measuring things other than methane  ;), there is a legitimate concern that there is that other nasty stuff in there.”

As Inside Climate News observed: “The findings challenge assurances from the  ( South Coast Air Quality Management District , the regional air pollution control agency, and the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that the leak hasn’t increased residents’ exposure to toxic gases.”   (  (

Dozens of public health and environmental advocates and experts will rally at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, DC tomorrow to press for federal action on the Porter Ranch leak.

Agelbert NOTE: The is something you should know that you will not hear about in the six o'clock news:

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2" by Archer and Brovkin .

"The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries. This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle, which we review here.

The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a thousand years or longer.

Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste.

The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere."

  The prolonged existence of atmospheric CO2 (

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing 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! (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 18, 2016, 08:52:29 pm
Why anyone that thinks fossil fuels are okay for now, is WRONG! (

The presentation is in English so you may ignore the subtitles.


Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 19, 2016, 07:55:15 pm
Blast at Alberta Long Lake oil sands project leaves one dead

Nicolas Torres  January 19, 2016

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 26, 2016, 11:12:41 pm
Polarcus Sets Record With Largest Man-Made Moving Object On Earth  :P

January 25, 2016 by gCaptain


Polarcus Amani doing its seismic thing. They, OF COURSE, claim it is "environmentally sound" (and painted it GREEN for good measure!  ( ( ).

Dubai-based  ;) Polarcus is in the process of acquiring an ultra-wide 3D marine seismic project offshore Myanmar, and is breaking acquisition performance records with the largest man-made moving object on earth.

The company’s vessel, Polarcus Amani, is towing an in-sea configuration that measures 1.8km wide across the front ends. With each of the 10 streamers separated by 200m, the total area covered by the spread is 17.6

This is the largest in-sea configuration ever towed by a single seismic vessel as well as the largest man-made moving object on earth, according to Polarcus.

The company is delivering up to 190 per day, a production rate that is currently unrivalled in the seismic industry.

“Such industry leading operational efficiency in Myanmar by one of our right-sized 3D seismic vessels exemplifies Polarcus’ strategy to deliver fit-for-purpose geophysical solutions to our clients. We work closely with all clients to ensure both their efficiency and data quality objectives are met and exceeded,” Polarcus COO, Duncan Eley stated.

Writing by Nadeem (c) gCaptain

Agelbert NOTE: WHAT do these "environmentally sound" seismic vessels DO?        ( You will never guess.     (

To be filed under breathtakingly ORWELLIAN claims.  (

Polarcus Limited OSE: PLCS is an offshore geophysical company operating a fleet of seismic research vessels worldwide. The company describes itself as having a strong environmental focus that aims to decrease emissions to both sea and air.[1]  Polarcus vessels have received high energy efficiency and environmental performance ratings.[2][3]  (

Polarcus provides worldwide seismic data acquisition services and Multi-Client library data as well as seismic data imaging to help energy companies find oil and gas reserves offshore.     (  (

The company was founded in 2008 in Dubai, UAE.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on January 29, 2016, 11:39:40 pm

Vermont Law School researcher authors analysis of Paris agreement on climate change

Jan. 28, 2016, 10:35 am by Press Release

News Release — Vermont Law School

 Jan. 27, 2016

Contact: Mark Cooper, 301-384-2204,

Analysis: Paris Agreement on Climate Change Makes Economic and Public Policy Sense

100-percent renewables pathway can decarbonize global economy and advance global economic development


“Contrary to loud complaints that dealing with climate change will cause a disastrous increase in electricity costs,” Cooper said, “a rigorous, least-cost approach prevents such an outcome and may even result in a reduction in the total cost of energy service, while delivering massive public health and environmental benefits.”(


The analysis examines the impact on costs of low-carbon and low-pollution constraints on the selection of resources to meet the need for electricity. The key economic findings are:

The selection of resources on the basis of their environmental characteristics is almost identical to a selection based on their economic cost.

A rigorous least-cost approach to decarbonization leads to an electricity sector based on 100-percent renewables at a cost for energy services that is likely to be lower than a business-as-usual approach based on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Neither fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage nor nuclear power enter the least-cost, low-carbon portfolio because their costs are much higher than renewables and do not appear to be decreasing. (

A rigorous, least-cost approach to decarbonization accomplishes the goal of reducing other pollution, rendering it “irrelevant” from a policy perspective.



Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 02, 2016, 05:52:42 pm
Norway regualtor finds ‘serious’ breaches tied to 2015 Statoil gas leak

Staff Writers  February 2, 2016   

The Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) said Tuesday that it found several “serious” breaches tied to a 2015 leak at Statoil’s Gudrun facility in the North Sea.

An investigation by the PSA into the February 2015 incident found that the leak was caused by a rupture in a two-inch pipe in the bypass line directly downstream of the first-stage separator.

The leak prompted a temporary production shut down at the Statoil operated platform.

Statoil estimated the initial leak rate at eight kilograms per second and found that condensate from the first-stage separator had leaked into the open air.

The PSA concluded that the leak spilled about 2,800 kilograms, or about four cubic meters, of condensate, with over one cubic meter of condensate believed to have been discharged into the sea.

“The leak on Gudrun is regarded as one of the larger hydrocarbon escapes recorded on the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS) over the past decade,” the PSA said.

No one was injured during the accident but the PSA said that, under “slightly different circumstances,” the leak could have resulted “in a major accident with loss of life, substantial damage to material assents and consequences for the marine environment.”

An investigation published by Statoil in May 2015 found that the leak could have been fatal if workers had been exposed to released gas.

The PSA identified nonconformities including “weaknesses in Statoil’s fulfillment of its responsibilities,insufficient robustness in the design, deficiencies in information management and competence, inadequate information at shift and personnel changes, weaknesses in experience transfer and learning” and nonconformities related to the execution of work on electrical installations.

The agency added that several of these nonconformities also involve “weaknesses in management follow-up to ensure that activities are conducted in an acceptable manner.”

The PSA has issued a notification of an order to Statoil that asks the company to address the nonconformities.

The notification of an order is not a sanction and is a preliminary step before the agency makes any administrative decisions.

Statoil has until June 1, 2016 to comply with the order.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 02, 2016, 07:20:37 pm
02/01/2016 01:01 PM   

If You Care About Environment & Climate, You'll Love Bernie ( News

by Rona Fried

If you look at what's important to the environmental community, you can't help but notice this is exactly what Bernie Sanders proposes in his platform and legislation he's introduced throughout his career:

•a quick and complete shift to 100% renewable energy - no half measures

•massive investments in energy efficiency

•a carbon tax

•support states that want to ban fracking; bar the fossil fuel industry from public lands; no more dirty pipeline infrastructure

•ban offshore oil drilling and oil and gas exports; ban mountaintop coal mining and place a moratorium on nuclear energy

•an end to fossil fuel subsidies

•move our transportation sector beyond oil through electric vehicles and mass transit, including high-speed rail. Increase fuel economy standards to 65 miles per gallon by 2025, catching up to Europe and Japan.

•real protection and expansion of our public lands for wildlife and biodiversity

•ousting conventional agriculture (ie Monsanto) and fossil lobbyists

•a transition to sustainable agriculture and away from GMO and subsidies for big ag companies

•resources and attention to climate change that treat it as the emergency it is.

Sanders would provide tax incentives for renewable energy permanently and proposes $41 billion for programs that people in the fossil fuel industry transfer their skills to clean energy.

Sanders views climate change as the "single greatest threat facing our planet," at a time when it's still not viewed that way by most of the public. He's correct, of course, and has the nerve to state it.

 He's also correct when he says the reason the US hasn't taken the level of action necessary on climate change is: a "small subsection of the 1% are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action."

That's why reversing Citizen's United and getting big money out of politics is so important, he says.

Sanders views a transition to a green economy as we do: the opportunity for new industries to arise that will bring us the next "industrial" revolution, but this time creating tens of milions of well-paying jobs ... that do not foul our environment and peoples' health.

Bernie strongly favors organic agriculture. He co-sponsored legislation to nationally label foods that contain GMOs and wants Monsanto et. al. out of the way.

 And he would nominate Supreme Court justices that reinforce the direction our economy needs to go. 

Bernie says:

"Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. The wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change." 

"Enough is enough. It's time to take on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerate our transition to clean energy, and finally put people before the profits of polluters."

 "What the scientists tell us is that we have a relatively short window of opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes that we need in our global energy system. It is absolutely vital that we do what many economists tell us we must, and that is put a price on carbon. It is the simplest and most direct way to make the kind of cuts in carbon pollution we need to successfully transition away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."

Climate Protection and Justice Act of 2015

 Introduced in Congress last year, this bill sets enforceable targets to reduce emissions from 1990 levels: 40% by 2030, and over 80% by 2050.

 A tax on carbon on fossil fuel producers and importers starts at $15 per ton in 2017 and rises to $73 per ton by 2035, adding another 5% a year after that. 

 The proceeds would go to households making less than $100,000 a year (80% of US families) to offset any rate hikes by fossil fuels companies. They are significant - a rebate of about $900 in 2017, growing to $1900 in 2030.

 It also provides $20 billion a year to the most vulnerable communities for climate resiliency projects; implements a "green tariff" that funds improvements in industrial energy efficiency; and programs that helps farms move to sustainable practices and renewable energy.

 While Hillary Clinton strongly supports much of Bernie's platform, she would never go as far, and the Republicans are a joke. Trump, for example, says climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to kill US manufacturing.

Bernie was there at the historic Peoples' Climate March, where was Hillary and Obama? 

Read, Ahead of Iowa Caucuses: Archie Bunker, Head versus Heart.

Read our article, One Senator Says: We Must Choose Renewables And Give Fossil Fuels the Boot ( and Bernie's climate bills introduced in 2013.

Here is Bernie's Climate Platform:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 04, 2016, 10:13:26 pm
Groundwater problem emerges at Vermont Yankee

Feb. 3, 2016, 5:29 pm by Mike Faher

Vermont Yankee 2010
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. File photo
(at link)

VERNON — Greater-than-anticipated amounts of groundwater — 90,000 gallons so far — are encroaching into a key building at Vermont Yankee, and plant administrators are weighing options to deal with the contaminated liquid.

Those options include shipping the water — which an official described as having “slight radioactive contamination” — to an out-of-state storage facility. There also has been preliminary talk of releasing water that is within allowable pollution limits into the Connecticut River, though state officials say they’ve not received any request to do so from plant owner Entergy.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission also is monitoring the water situation, and it appears to be improving: The agency noted in a recent inspection report that “the groundwater intrusion rate has slowed considerably” at the nuclear plant’s turbine building, and there is still excess storage capacity to handle it.

“Our inspectors will continue to track Entergy’s efforts to address the issue, but it does not pose any threat to public health and safety,” NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn said that, while the amount of water is unexpected, the issue itself was part of the company’s decommissioning plans and will not cause any significant additional costs. “We anticipated this water management program in our decommissioning costs estimate,” Cohn said. “All we’re doing now is figuring out how to dispose of it.”

Vermont Yankee ceased producing power in December 2014, and Entergy has spent the past year preparing the plant for an extended period of dormancy that will precede decommissioning. The NRC says Yankee is in a “post-operation transition phase.”

Last year, the NRC pulled its resident inspector from the plant. But the agency continues to visit and inspect the site. The most recent quarterly inspection report, dated Jan. 28, was based in part on two site visits and identified “no findings of safety significance.”

Within that report, however, is a paragraph saying the plant’s “radioactive water inventories were increasing due mainly to the intrusion of groundwater.” An NRC inspector “determined that VY is considering options regarding future disposal of on-site radioactive water inventory and is also considering options for future action to further mitigate groundwater intrusion,” the document says.

Sheehan said the issue is ongoing. Since the plant shut down, “Vermont Yankee has experienced greater groundwater intrusion into the lowest level of the turbine building,” he said. “Generally, the groundwater totals a few hundred gallons a day, though there are occasional spikes, including one recent day when the amount rose to about 1,500 gallons.”

He cited increased rainfall as one factor. A bigger problem is that the plant is no longer operational, since higher temperatures from power production had led to greater evaporation of intruding groundwater in the past.

Sheehan said Entergy has been working to slow the flow by hiring a contractor to seal cracks in the turbine building and drilling “interceptor wells” nearby. Cohn clarified that those are not deep wells, but rather horizontal holes that act as drainage routes. “What you’re trying to do is redirect the water,” Cohn said.

The NRC inspection report says Entergy is tracking the plant’s water inventory daily, and Sheehan said the company has been pumping and storing groundwater — about 90,000 gallons at this point. He characterized the liquid as having “slight radioactive contamination” after having come into contact with the turbine building.

Cohn said the location of the water is what dictates its contamination status. “Any water that comes into the protected area — rain, etc. — becomes part of our onsite radioactive water inventory,” he said. “We have to come up with ways to dispose of it.”

The NRC says Entergy is developing a radioactive water management plan for Vermont Yankee. Its scope will extend beyond the current groundwater intrusion issue; Sheehan said the site has more than 1 million gallons of radioactive water. That includes water in the torus, a doughnut-shaped reservoir at the base of the reactor building, and in a condensate storage tank.

Shipping radioactive water away from the plant appears to be the most immediate proposed disposal solution.

“One element of this plan would be to ship approximately 200,000 gallons of the torus water to U.S. Ecology Inc. in Idaho by truck for disposal,” Sheehan said. “Entergy last month submitted an exemption request to the NRC seeking approval for these shipments.” It wants an answer by April 15, he said.

While such a shipment falls under federal regulations, state officials say they are aware of Entergy’s request and want to keep an eye on any transfer of radioactive water. “We’re evaluating what kind of monitoring we would want to do,” said Trey Martin, deputy secretary of natural resources.

Some of the water could end up in the Connecticut River. “All nuclear power plants are allowed to discharge slightly radioactive water to adjoining waterways provided the radioactivity is within allowable federal limits,” Sheehan said.

Any proposed discharges would be likely to cause controversy, and they would be regulated by the state. Martin said his agency has no permit requests to review, so he can’t take a position on the matter at this point.

“(Entergy) would have to come to us to talk about a discharge,” Martin said. “If they do come to that, we’ll obviously take a very hard look at that.”

Also watching closely is Bill Irwin, the state Health Department’s radiological and toxicological sciences chief. At a meeting in Brattleboro last week, Irwin made the case for ongoing, intensive Vermont Yankee groundwater monitoring by both Entergy and the state.

“We certainly are interested in what’s occurring there relative both to the groundwater into the turbine building” and Entergy’s disposal plans, Irwin said Wednesday. “Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of information about that, and I’ve asked for additional information.” (

Agelbert NOTE: The Vermont wit and humor is showcased below in EXCELLENT comments.     (

Bob Stannard  (

I wonder if Neil Sheehan has ever stopped to think about how many times he’s said “it’s just slightly radioactive”? How much radiation is safe? Zero. There is no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Much like the lead poisoned water we’re hearing about radiation is cumulative. The more you get; the more you get to keep.

Meanwhile, Entergy is doing what it planned to do all along; confiscate as much of the decommissioning fund as possible and abrogate as much responsibility as possible. They would walk away from all of these old, leaking plants if they could. I’ve never had much faith in Neil Sheehan taking any action that was in the public’s best interest.

The NRC is funded by the industry it oversees. In Vermont we call that rabbits watching over lettuce.  ;) ;D

Terry Allen

Hi there Vermont, Martin Shkreli here (of 5000% price boost on life-saving drug fame) and I have a solution for you guys for the radioactive groundwater challenge. You are looking at it all wrong!! It is NOT a problem. It is an opportunity. Instead of trucking the radioactive toxic waste water to Idaho, send it to Flint, MI, and sell it to the local populace there. First of all it’s safer than their lead-contaminated water they have been drinking, and second, the health consequences are less documented and further out into the future, when likely Entergy will have figured out how to wash it’s hands (in Perrier) of the whole thing before any law suits wend their way to settlement. Win, win win win, win. Glad to help. The consulting bill is in the mail. (  (

    Greg Morgan

This is not a big problem – and one that has already been solved. Post 3 Mile Island, SNL’s Garrett Morris entered the reactor building with a mop and bucket. Problem solved. I looked for a link to the skit, but couldn’t dig it up. One of my SNL favorites. I am a bit worried about proposing this, fearing that it might be picked up as a good idea!?  ;)

   Jon Warren Lentz

Ship the tainted water to D.C. & plumb it to the Senator’s & Representative’s  drinking fountains.  :D
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 08, 2016, 03:27:08 pm

Environmental Group Halts Offshore Fracking In California

February 6, 2016 by Reuters 

Gray shading shows area mapped by USGS with interferometric sonar in 2005 (Santa Barbara is off map to left, about 18 km west of Carpinteria). Oil platforms are labeled in white. Bathymetric contours are at 5-m-depth intervals.

Reuters (Reuters) A conservation group said the federal government must stop approving offshore fracking from oil platforms in California’s Santa Barbara Channel under the settlement of a lawsuit it filed.

 The group, the Center for Biological Diversity, in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, had challenged what it said was the U.S. Department of the Interior’s practice of rubber-stamping fracking off California’s coast without engaging the public or analyzing fracking’s threats to ocean ecosystems, coastal communities and marine life.

The settlement reached on Friday prohibits officials from authorizing fracking practices in federal waters until the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement complete an environmental review, the Center for Biological Diversity said.

The pause, however, will not likely affect production at large because California has not been producing much offshore oil lately.

Oil companies have fracked at least 200 wells in Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach and in the wildlife-rich Santa Barbara Channel, the Center for Biological Diversity said.

The settlement could potentially affect oversight of all federally permitted offshore fracking, including fracking in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, the group said.

The U.S. Department of the Interior could not be reached immediately for comment.

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 08, 2016, 03:44:31 pm
South Asian Scrapyards Need To Improve Shipbreaking Practices, NGO Says

February 5, 2016 by gCaptain
Jafrabad ship breaking yard Chittagong

A new report by NGO Shipbreaking Platform reveals that more than 60% of 768 ships sold for scrap last year were broken on the beaches of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, where ship owners have to improve shipbreaking practices.

The shipbreaking yards in South Asian do not provide fundamental labor rights, ignore international waste trade law, and fail to respect international environmental protection standards, according to the report.

The data shows that 768 large vessels were sold to the scrap yards last year, with 469 were broken on the beaches of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Last year, Greek owners sold the most end-of-life vessels to dirty and dangerous shipbreaking sites in South Asia, according to the NGO Shipbreaking Platform. Meanwhile, Bangladesh became the world’s number one destination for scrap ships for the first time in many years.

“Despite a lot of international attention on the problems of shipbreaking on the beaches of South Asia, the statistics for 2015 show that the vast majority of ship owners have not changed their practice for the better. On the contrary, most have opted for one of the worst shipbreaking destination in the world – Bangladesh, where children are still illegally exploited to break ships manually on tidal mudflats”, NGO Shipbreaking Platform Director Patrizia Heidegger said in a statement.

The NGO applauds the European Union’s plan to publish a list of approved ship recycling facilities worldwide by the end of 2016.

“This will satisfy the call from those that demand better practices, including investors such as ABN-Amro and cargo owners such as H&M, Stora Enso and Phillips – none of whom wish to be associated with polluting and harmful end-of-life management of old ships,” according to the group.

The NGO wants shipping companies and their investors to only allow their vessels to go to yards listed on the EU list. It also recommends governments to take steps to ensure national use of the EU list.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 09, 2016, 07:47:50 pm
The EU’s diesel problem; glyphosate cancer row; full story of DuPont PFC court battle

February 9, 2016 at 6:51 pm 
Feb 2016 Health & Environment  News Bulletin

Beyond a One-Time Scandal: Europe’s Ongoing Diesel Pollution Problem. ( More than half of Europe’s passenger fleet is diesel-powered: the emissions scandal has spotlighted the persistent problem of NOx pollution in Europe, where diesel emissions are a major contributor to poor urban air quality. To understand the potential health consequences of the emissions breach, however, one must first understand the risks associated with different components of diesel exhaust. (Environmental Health Perspectives)

EU scientists in row over safety of Glyphosate weedkiller. ( A bitter row has broken out over the allegedly carcinogenic qualities of a widely-used weedkiller, ahead of an EU decision on whether to continue to allow its use. At issue is a call by the European Food and Safety Authority (Efsa) to disregard an opinion by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on the health effects of Glyphosate. (The Guardian)

The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare. ( “The thought that DuPont could get away with this for this long,” Bilott says, his tone landing halfway between wonder and rage, “that they could keep making a profit off it, then get the agreement of the governmental agencies to slowly phase it out, only to replace it with an alternative with unknown human effects — we told the agencies about this in 2001, and they’ve essentially done nothing.” (New York Times)

Weak EU tests for diesel emissions are ‘illegal’, say lawyers. ( in planned ‘real world’ tests allow cars to emit double the standard for NOx pollution and are ‘legally indefensible’ say MEPs, after new advice revealed. (The Guardian)

Science-based medicine versus the Flint water crisis. (  One aspect of science-based medicine that is not covered frequently on this blog, aside from vaccines and antivaccine pseudoscience, but perhaps should be, is the intersection of SBM and public health. Unfortunately, living as I do in southeast Michigan right now, I’ve been on the receiving end of an inescapable lesson in what happens when the government fails in its mission to enforce science-based public health issues. I’m referring, of course, to what has become known worldwide as the Flint water crisis. (Science-Based Medicine)
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 16, 2016, 03:22:02 pm
French Ecology Minister Calls for Ban on Glyphosate Formulations  ;D

Lorraine Chow | February 16, 2016 2:38 pm

Agelbert Comment: YES! Let's hope France joins with Brazil and helps put Monsanto out of business and their chief executives and empathy deficit disordered scientist GMO producers AND the lawyers that defend them  in the poorhouse from heavy fines as legal remedies And/or prison.

Tell Obama to FIRE the Monsanto Mole tools rotting and ruining the US government agricultural and environmental  policies on behalf of profit over planet.

FOR DETAILS, Google any part of the following QUOTE form a revealing article:

QUOTE While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration appointed Michael Taylor, the previous vice president of Monsanto and a current Monsanto lobbyist, to a high level advisory role at the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. It is virtually inarguable that this appointment constitutes a massive boon for Monsanto and an undeniable conflict of interest for Taylor. Given the fact that Taylor is a lobbyist for Monsanto and is being paid by the agro-giant, it is reasonable to assume that his advice to the FDA is focused upon helping his employer reduce its regulatory burden and improve its profitability. It isn’t a secret who Taylor worked for and we can assume that the Obama administration knew who they were appointing when they did it.

Roger Beachy, the Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (a Monsanto organization), was appointed by the Obama administration as the Director of the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. NIFA is a department of the USDA which focuses on funding research and innovation in the field of agriculture as well developing more efficient ways to produce food. As the major grant-writing division of the USDA, the NIFA department has the ability to grant or reject agricultural research grants. By giving Beachy the Directorship of the NIFA, the Obama administration gave a Monsanto associate the most powerful position in the organization which allocates agricultural research grants. Needless to say, this appointment is a great boon for Monsanto and bad news for any group which disagrees with the agri-business giant.

Islam Siddiqui, a Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed to the post of Agriculture Trade Representative by the Obama administration. Trade representative are tasked with promoting trade of goods within their appointed field (ex. Agricultural trade reps promote the export of American crops). As Monsanto has a controlling interest in American corn production, the appointment of a Monsanto lobbyist to the position of trade representative is a large boon for the corporation. Siddiqui’s government job is to promote the export of American crops and his Monsanto job is to promote the sale of Monsanto crops—it is undeniable that these two jobs present a conflict of interest and will only lead to Siddiqui representing Monsanto’s interests as though they are the interests of the United States.

Appointment of Elena Kagen

The justices that a president appoints to the Supreme Court is one of their most enduring and important contributions to the United States that every president gives the country. During his first term, President Obama appointed two Justices, one of whom was Elena Kagan, the former Solicitor General of the United States. During her time as the Solicitor General, Kagan filed a brief in support of Monsanto.

In 2007, Monsanto was brought to court by growers of alfalfa in California—these growers alleged that their crops were being cross-pollinated with, and thus contaminated by, Monsanto’s GMO crops. After winning an initial legal victory and securing an injunction on Monsanto’s planting of its modified alfalfa, Monsanto appealed the ruling and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that the United States government had no interest in the Monsanto alfalfa case, Kagan, the solicitor general wrote an “amicus” brief in favor of Monsanto’s position.

Nobody knows why the Solicitor General’s office decided to get involved in the Monsanto alfalfa case, but it was an unusual act by a supposedly neutral body; there was no rational reason for the US government to get involved in this case. While we don’t know the reason for this brief, it does make many believe that Kagan may be sympathetic to Monsanto’s corporate interests. UNQUOTE
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 17, 2016, 08:24:03 pm
Second Review of EPA’s Fracking Study Urges Revisions to Major Statements in Executive Summary
Wenonah Hauter | February 16, 2016 3:46 pm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) independent Scientific Advisory Board Members of the Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel released today a second review of the U.S. EPA’s draft assessment saying that that they still have “concerns” regarding the clarity and adequacy of support for several findings presented in the EPA’s draft Assessment Report of the impacts of fracking on drinking water supplies in the U.S.

Ray Kemble of Dimock, Pennsylvania, holds a jug of discolored water from his well, contaminated by nearby fracking operations while standing outside of the U.S. EPA building in Washington, DC. Photo credit: Food & Water Watch

Ray Kemble of Dimock, Pennsylvania, holds a jug of discolored water from his well, contaminated by nearby fracking operations while standing outside of the U.S. EPA building in Washington, DC. Photo credit: Food & Water Watch

This second draft report is still very critical of the EPA’s top line claim of no “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water from fracking and urges the agency to revise the major statements of findings in the executive summary and elsewhere in the draft Assessment report to be more precise, and to clearly link these statements to evidence.

In its own words, the EPA SAB “is concerned that these major findings as presented within the executive summary are ambiguous and appear inconsistent with the observations, data, and levels of uncertainty presented and discussed in the body of the draft Assessment Report.”

We are confident that this tension between President Obama’s EPA and the EPA’s own independent advisory board of scientists is a direct consequence of political considerations trumping scientific evidence on fracking, which demonstrates many instances and avenues of water contamination and many areas of problems and harms.

It is encouraging to see the EPA’s Science Advisory Board once again highlighting concern with what was clearly a mis-titled and misleading draft report ( from the Obama Administration on fracking and drinking water. Now it’s time for action. It’s time for the administration to go back, clearly articulate the hazards its own studies have identified, and honestly address the inherent dangers of fracking we know to exist.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 18, 2016, 07:59:28 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find a typical slap on the wrist for polluters in the USA. They literally DO get away with murder.   (

Two firms fined for 2014 Colorado vapor exposure death

Staff Writers  February 18, 2016   

Two oil field services firms   ( have been fined a combined $14,800 for violations tied to the 2014 death of an oil field worker.

According to the Denver Post, Colorado-based DJ Basin Transport will pay a $5,000 fine and Texas-based Gibson Energy LLC will pay a $14,800 fine after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited both firms for failing to provide a safe working environment.

The citations were related to an incident of fatal exposure to toxic vapors that killed 57 year old John McNulty in 2014.

According to a forensic pathology report seen by the Denver Post, McNulty was working on catwalk between tanks at an oil site in Weld County, Colorado when he become unresponsive for “unknown reason.”

Federal health officials determined that McNulty likely died after he inhaled toxic vapors as he was measuring storage tanks.

OSHA cited both firms for failing to develop and use gauging and sampling procedures that did not expose employees to an oxygen deficient atmosphere or to hydrocarbon gases and vapors, the Denver Post added.

Neither firm has commented on the matter.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 19, 2016, 08:53:19 pm
UPDATE: California’s Refugio Oil Spill Larger Than Estimated

Posted On February 19, 2016 by Greg Helms

It’s like 16 trucks pulling up to the beach and dumping every drop of oil into the Pacific Ocean.

Oil on the beach at Refugio State Park in Santa Barbara, California, on May 19, 2015. (U.S. Coast Guard)

Controversy is brewing over just how much crude oil fouled pristine beaches and ocean waters in the Golden State as a result of the Refugio oil spill in May 2015.

On February 17, a preliminary factual report issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration indicates an additional 1,000 barrels of oil may have ended up in our ocean. This puts the total spill volume at an estimated 3,400 barrels or 142,800 gallons.

That’s like having 16 trucks pull up to the beach and dumping every drop of oil into the Pacific Ocean to spread towards unique and irreplaceable places like the Naples Reef State Marine Conservation Area and Kashtayit State Marine Conservation Area, which was established to protect and celebrate the coastal culture practiced by Chumash Indians for millennia.

The federal regulators based its calculations on the purging of affected pipelines required as part of an investigation into what caused the spill. The Plains All-America Pipeline Company put the figure at 2,400 barrels (100,800 gallons), which was later raised to 2,860 barrels. Now a third-party investigator is working to reconcile the difference. Also of interest in the report is that 997 barrels of oil were recovered by the oil spill response—far lower than any estimate of the overall spill volume.

Towards recovery and restoration

Federal and state agencies designated as “natural resource trustees” have assembled to conduct a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) to quantify the resource damages Plains All-American must pay as part of a recovery and restoration effort. That sum is separate from any legal liability that could stem from potential findings of negligence or wrong-doing discovered in separate investigations.

One thing is clear: it will be a challenge to assign a price to the loss of the spill zone’s rich ecological, commercial, recreational and aesthetic values and then choose projects that can best restore these losses.

It is relatively straight-forward to put a dollar value to the lost days of commercial fishing during the lengthy fishing closure imposed after the spill but how will monetary value be pinned on potential damage from negative perceptions of the region’s seafood quality?

Reduced access to the area’s favored recreational fishing sites could be tackled through construction or improvements in facilities like boat ramps and launch sites but will that address the full impact to the recreational experience in Santa Barbara?

As agencies and communities grapple with these issues, the investigation into the cause of the oil spill—which the report identifies generally as corrosion—has prompted a full shut down and partial removal of pipelines transporting oil and gas produced offshore to distant onshore facilities. This has resulted in several offshore oil and gas platforms stopping production. Energy companies are requesting permission to move oil via even riskier transportation modes like trucks and rail lines. So far, the only exception made was for oil remaining in affected pipelines and storage tanks to prevent further corrosion and head off another disaster.

Meanwhile, tar balls washed up on beaches over 100 miles from the spill site.

The once pristine beaches and nearshore waters in my state are reeling from a toxic impact that will continue to reverberate through complex ecosystems and habitats. Just how these damages are assessed and addressed, and how accountability for the spill is applied, will remain an important focus for Ocean Conservancy.

Posted in Ocean Life, Science & Conservation | Tagged california, Greg Helms, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Plains All-America Pipeline Company, Refugio Oil Spill

Greg Helms works on fisheries, ecosystem protection and marine protected areas for Ocean Conservancy. A lifelong passion for water sports such as surfing and diving on both US coasts helped form Greg’s strong ocean conservation ethic. These two commitments result in terribly kinked phone cords and not-quite dry wetsuits around Ocean Conservancy’s Santa Barbara field office.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 21, 2016, 03:37:26 pm
The Profit Over Planet PIGGERY continues. ( Instead of investing in platforms for wind turbines, they keep making platforms for oil and gas extraction. They just don't get it. (   :(

The new Marathon Oil Alba platform has been installed after being transported form Heerema’s Dutch fabrication yard to Equatorial Guinea.

Marathon Oil President and CEO, Lee Tillman   ( said: “we reached a major milestone in Equatorial Guinea with the successful installation of the jacket and topsides for the Alba field compression project,”

The new platform is part of the Houston based oil company’s ongoing expansion   (  ( the international sectors.

The climate is going to hell in a CO2 climate change hand basket.

But all the biosphere math challenged Oil Bastards from TEXAS  ( can say is:



Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 24, 2016, 09:43:58 pm
Tanker Captain Pleads Guilty to Felony Obstruction in ‘Magic Pipe’ Pollution Case

February 22, 2016 by gCaptain

A Filipino ship captain has pleaded guilty to one felony count for obstructing a U.S. Coast Guard investigation into pollution crimes aboard his ship.

Genaro Anciano, 52, who was the highest ranking officer aboard the tanker Green Sky ::), pleaded guilty to one count of Obstruction of an Agency Proceeding in federal court in Charleston, South Carolina.

The charge stems from a Coast Guard investigation in late August 2015 into the bypass of pollution prevention equipment, including the use of a “magic device”, aka a magic pipe, aboard the Green Sky. In court papers, the defendant stated that members of the ship’s engine room, including a senior officer, admitted to illegally discharging oily bilge waste overboard. The admission occurred prior to the August 2015 Coast Guard inspection at the Port of North Charleston, during which Anciano made several false and misleading statements to the Coast Guard to cover up the illegal conduct.

The Liberia-flagged Green Sky is a 30,263 gross ton, ocean-going vessel that operates as a petroleum and chemical tanker and is owned by an entity incorporated in the Marshall Islands. Over the course of several days, the normal operation of the Green Sky generates thousands of gallons of bilge wastes that are contaminated with petroleum products and oil residues.

Both the United States and Liberia are parties to the MARPOL treaty, which regulates the overboard discharge of bilge waste. It was prohibited to discharge bilge wastes from the Green Sky without first running that effluent through the ship’s oily water separator. According to the MARPOL treaty, all overboard discharges from the vessel’s bilges had to be recorded in the Green Sky’s oil record book. A bypass of the oily water separator, which is not recorded in the oil record book, jeopardizes the accuracy and integrity of that document. It is a separate federal crime for oceangoing vessels to enter a U.S. port with a false oil record book.

Anciano’s sentencing has not been scheduled.


The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service with assistance from inspectors from Sector Charleston as well as Legal from U.S. Coast Guard in Miami.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 24, 2016, 10:46:38 pm
180+ Infrared Videos Show Methane Pollution All Across America

Earthworks | February 24, 2016 2:20 pm

Just as the worst methane leak in California’s history is sealed and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledged that America pollutes much more methane than previously estimated, Earthworks—the group that filmed the videos revealing the scope of the methane disaster in Los Angeles County—released a map of 180+ infrared videos of oil and gas methane pollution events across the country.

The map, created with the help of FracTracker Alliance, includes two new videos that epitomize the national methane pollution problem.

The first is of a well near Longmont, Colorado:

The second one is of a massive pipeline blowdown in North Dakota’s Bakken shale region:
“In November of 2012, the voters in Longmont banned fracking to protect our health, safety and wellbeing, especially because of air pollution,” said Kaye Fissinger, president of Our Longmont.

“The air we breathe in Longmont is still subject to ‘toxic trespass’ from extreme extraction in communities nearby. It’s long past time for government to stop tinkering around the edges and genuinely address the ever-growing damage that fracking and drilling inflict.”

“For the past eight years I have witnessed the rapid increase of oil and gas industrialization and the environmental destruction that comes with it,” said Lisa DeVille of Dakota Resource Council and the Three Affiliated Tribes. “Finally we can see the air pollution that’s all around us. We are concerned about the harmful health and environmental impacts of methane and other air pollutants released from well sites. This is an unmeasurable cost to tribal members on Ft. Berthold and those downwind. We value our health and our lands.”

Full article:
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on February 29, 2016, 09:10:13 pm
photo of pipeline under construction

Agelbert NOTE: I KNOW what brine is. Try drinking that "brine" innocently mentioned in the following news item and you will find, before you pass out and are sent to the ER, that there is a bit more to the "brine" than brackish, high salt content sea water.  :P

The CRAP they call "brine" in this post has a witches brew of solvents and hydrocarbons IN IT that they FAIL to mention poisons the soil. These innocuous sounding terms like "brine" are the typical disingenuous pap that is fed to we-the-people whenever these polluters get caught polluting.   (

Marathon Oil pipeline in North Dakota spills 6,250 gallons of brine

Staff Writers  February 29, 2016   

A pipeline spill at a Marathon Oil operated site in North Dakota earlier this week released an estimated 6,250 gallons of produced water.

According the North Dakota Department of Health, the pipeline spill was reported on Tuesday and occurred at a Dunn County well site about 6 miles north of Killdeer.

The pipeline is believed to have spilled about 149 barrels of brine, a byproduct of oil and gas production.

A North Dakota state environmental scientist told the AP that the released fluid traveled about 1,500 feet from the well site after making its way into a dry channel.

The Department of Health added that there is currently no evidence  ;)   ( that the spill impacted nearby wetlands.

Houston-based Marathon told the AP that it’s currently investigating the cause of the release and added the company doesn’t yet know how long the cleanup will take.  ;)

The Department of Health said it is responding to the spill and will work with the company on remediation plans.  ::) (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 03, 2016, 03:46:57 pm
Across the country, companies are emitting dangerous pollution into the air, making it difficult to breathe and putting the health of our communities at risk.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 07, 2016, 02:47:46 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Our government is  protecting people's health corporate bottom lines.  >:(
Why Is Our Government Working for the Private Good over the Public Good?  ???

It's been over two years since a massive chemical spill in West Virginia left regulators puzzled over basic questions like, how toxic is this chemical? Does it pose a threat to pregnant women and children? How long will this chemical stay in the environment, or in people's bodies?

The reason we couldn't answer those questions was simple.

Chemicals that were invented or discovered before 1976 - thousands and thousands of chemicals that were developed in the early 20th century - were simply "grandfathered in" to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and presumed safe until proven dangerous.

There was a massive public outcry in response to the Elk River chemical spill, and Congress quickly took up action to reform and strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act, also known as "ToSCA".

So, over two years later, how's that new legislation coming along?

If you happen to be on the board of a multi-billion dollar agrichemical giant called Monsanto, it's going great!

Not so much though, if you happen to be a private citizen who actually wants accountability when corporations poison communities or expose them to cancer-causing chemicals.

Right in the middle of the sweeping new chemical safety bill that Congress is working out, Republicans in the House of Representatives have added one paragraph that would save Monsanto, and only Monsanto, hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits.

The clause relates to "PCBs", which are non-flammable Monsanto-produced chemicals that were used extensively in electronics, caulk, paints, pesticides and thermal insulation in buildings for most of the 20th century.

Starting in the 1930s, Monsanto manufactured nearly all of the 1.25 billion pounds of PCBs that were produced and sold in the United States.

In 1977 Monsanto stopped producing PCBs because of health concerns, and the EPA banned the chemical with few exceptions in 1979.

PCBs don't break down easily though: they stay in the environment and in sewage systems, they accumulate in the fat tissues in animals and humans, and they cause health problems like cancer.

Just last year, cities and school systems tried to sue Monsanto for hundreds of millions of dollars to get them to pay part of the cost to reduce PCB levels in sewer discharge and in construction caulk to meet federal and state regulations.

At the same time, another group of individuals with non-Hodgkins lymphoma related to PCB exposure sued Monsanto for damages.

If the House version of the new chemical safety bill passes into law though, those cities and schools will be stuck with the bill to clean up Monsanto's cancer-causing chemical, and individuals will be stuck with the bill to treat the cancers that the chemical caused.  (

Read more HERE (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 07, 2016, 10:45:23 pm
Alan Ducatman, a physician who studies the health effects of these types of chemicals, told The Intercept that the news of GenX hazards “all has an eerie echo.” He writes that GenX has the same trio of biological effects – on the liver, immunity, and the processing of fats – seen with similar chemicals, including C8. “This reminds me a lot of a path we have recently traveled. That journey is not ending well.”

GenX, introduced in 2009 as a substitute for Teflon’s toxic PFOA, doesn't seem safe at all.  (

When a massive class-action lawsuit brought the toxic nature of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) to public light, DuPont set their sights on a safer replacement for the surfactant that was a key ingredient in Teflon, that which gives the non-stick to non-stick cookware and other sticky things. In 2009 the company introduced GenX, touting it as having a “more favorable toxicological profile” than PFOA (also known as C8). Yet at the same time, DuPont filed 16 reports of “substantial risk of injury to health or the environment” about its new chemical, according to investigative reporting by The Intercept.

“The reports, discovered in the course of an investigation by The Intercept, were filed under Section 8 (e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and submitted to the EPA between April 2006 and January 2013,” writes Sharon Lerner. “They cite numerous health effects in animals, including changes in the size and weight of animals’ livers and kidneys, alterations to their immune responses and cholesterol levels, weight gain, reproductive problems, and cancer.”

It’s crazy – DuPont actually submitted reports siting cancerous tumors in the liver, pancreas, and testicles of rats from exposure to GenX. Some rats in the same experiment also developed benign tumors, as well as kidney disease, liver degeneration, and uterine polyps.

DuPont’s take on this? It was animals, not people, so no biggie. (Although last time I checked people were animals, too, but what do I know?) One researcher who signed the report downplayed the results by saying that “these tumor findings are not considered relevant for human risk assessment.” Much like what DuPont scientists said about testicular tumors in lab animals from PFOA before it was linked to testicular cancer in people.

(Also, if findings in rats are not considered relevant for human risk assessment, why in the world are we torturing the poor things?)

“It’s the same constellation of effects you see with PFOA,” said Deborah Rice, a retired toxicologist who served as a senior risk assessor in the National Center for Environmental Assessment at the EPA. “There’s no way you can call this a safe substitute.”

Alan Ducatman, a physician who studies the health effects of these types of chemicals, told The Intercept that the news of GenX hazards “all has an eerie echo.” He writes that GenX has the same trio of biological effects – on the liver, immunity, and the processing of fats – seen with similar chemicals, including C8. “This reminds me a lot of a path we have recently traveled. That journey is not ending well.”

Indeed, not well at all. Sharon Lerner digs deep and uncovers a whole dark tangled mess about GenX, a chemical that is neither regulated nor tracked by the EPA, but which is being produced and released nonetheless ... and is known to cause cancer in animals. Read all the nitty-gritty at The Intercept ... and embrace your cast irons pans.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2016, 06:54:16 pm
Honduran Peasant Leader Berta Cáceres ASSASSINATED for Resisting Profit Over Planet Corporations   (

With ‘Fierce Love and Conviction,’ Women Take Stand for Mother Earth
Posted on Mar 8, 2016 By Lauren McCauley / Common Dreams

Indigenous women, environmentalists, and feminists across the globe on Tuesday marked International Women’s Day with a renewed call to stand up against oppression and resist the intersecting attacks on women and Mother Earth—our Pachamama.

Falling just days after the high-profile assassination of Honduran peasant leader Berta Cáceres, many groups issued specific calls to honor the slayed activist, who dedicated her life to the causes of female and Indigenous sovereignty, and resisting environmental destruction.

Berta Cáceres is a leader who has inspired us for many years as an indigenous woman activist raising her voice in the defense of women’s bodies—our primary territory—and community territory, land, water and the commons,” stated Jagoda Munic, chairperson of Friends of the Earth International (FoEI).

On Tuesday, the global environmental and social justice group called for female activists to “take Berta’s political messages and image onto the streets” and “make visible our struggles to end violence against all women and for women’s autonomy over our bodies, lives and work.” And throughout the week, FoEI has organized actions at Honduran embassies worldwide to “denounce state level violence” and demand “immediate justice for the murder of Berta.”

Her killing, Munic explains, “has shown us in practice that there is no environmental justice without an end to all forms of violence against women and to the exploitation of women’s reproductive and productive work.”

Munic continued,
“Capital accumulation in a time of multiple crisis—economic, social, environmental — is made possible through the oppression and domination of both nature and women’s work: both are considered infinite, elastic resources, to be exploited according to the interests of elite groups.”  (

Similarly, the international peasant movement La Via Campesina (LVC) is celebrating International Women’s Day with a call for action “against capitalist violence all over the world.”

In a statement, the group warns that “with the spread of conservative policies which constitute an attack on women’s human rights and their very lives, there is growing oppression of women by capitalism and the patriarchy around the world.”

Pointing specifically to the murder of Cáceres last week as well as other examples of women across the globe who “continue to be deprived of their most basic freedom,” LVC is calling for March 8th “to be a day of mobilizing and organizing against all forms of oppression ... in order to denounce the destructive capitalist and agribusiness model and to show how it harms the lives of women and jeopardizes the food sovereignty of the world’s peoples—directly affecting women peasants and small-scale farmers.”

Taking up those calls, hundreds of women from the Ecuadorian Amazon on Tuesday are marching in the city of Puyo to call for the cancellation of a new oil contract between the government and the Chinese state-owned oil company Andes Petroleum.

The deal includes the territory of both the Sápara Indigenous people and the Kichwa people of Sarayaku, communities that have both condemned the deal. In a collective statement, women from the two tribes declared that they reject the contract “which will affect our territories, the forest, the water, and the air.”  >:(

Women are the main victims [of oil extraction] and their ability to feed their families becomes impaired,” the statement continues. “There is deterioration of family health, and they suffer the division of their communities and other forms of violence.”

The women of the Ecuadorian Amazon have been on the front lines of this and other fights. “In marches, protests, conferences and international forums,” wrote Emily Arasim and Osprey Orielle Lake, with the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network, these women “are standing with fierce love and conviction for the forests and their communities, and navigating a brutal intersection of environmental devastation, cultural dislocation and violence and persecution as women human rights and land defenders.”

Our Responsibility to Future Generations (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2016, 07:31:57 pm

Jury Awards Two Dimock Couples $4.2 Million After Finding Cabot Oil & Gas Negligent in Fracking Contamination Case  (

Stefanie Spear | March 10, 2016 2:16 pm (

YES!  (  But expect the polluters to fight dirty in court. They have many bought and paid for judges AND politicians.

Read what this giant polluter and OWNER of most of the fracking machinery says about how to 'handle' environmental legislation: Schlumberger N.V. (SLB): The BIG OIL Planet Polluter you never heard of (

When they can't contest an award, they will try to water down the award to one tenth of the original award like they did with the bought and paid for Scalia court in the Exxon Valdez award to the victims of Exxon piggery.

The "excuse" for lowering the award was then, and will be in the fracking case as well (as you can learn by my "discussions" with bought and paid for lawyers defending Cabot Oil & Gas at the story link), is that the "benefits to society" of the polluting corporation products would be "undermined" by not watering down the award to the plaintiffs (SEE: Too big to fail, fine or jail  ;)).

IOW, the pecuniary "damages" suffered by the corporation for externalizing pollution costs must be reduced because the families that suffered the effects of the pollution are less important to society than the alleged benefits that polluting corporations provide to society.  :P

It's typical sophistry that ignores the massive profits polluting corporations have received from polluting products while focusing exclusively on the "benefits" of these products, instead of weighing the corporate profits against the award. They are clever bastards. (

Fascist Victory on June 26, 2008 Supreme Court drastically cuts payouts for plaintiffs in Exxon Valdez oil spill (

Learned ethics free  counselor tells us how Exxon did what they did, as if that's just fine and dandy: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation. (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2016, 06:46:10 pm
Cyprus-flagged MV Gallia Graeca caught doing what ALL of them do on a regular basis.  :P

Shipping Companies, Engineers Charged with Environmental Crimes in Seattle

March 11, 2016 by gCaptain
A grand jury in Seattle has indicted two shipping companies and two engineers for crimes related to the illegal discharge of oily wastewater from the Cyprus-flagged MV Gallia Graeca.

U.S. Attorney Annette L. Hayes announced the indictment against the ship’s Panamanian operator, Angelakos (Hellas), and its owner, Gallia Greaca Shipping of Cyprus, as well as engineers Konstantinos Chrysovergis and Tryfon Angelou. The two engineers are scheduled to be arraigned on the indictment on March 24, 2016.

According to the indictment, during a voyage from China to Seattle in October 2015, MV Gallia Graeca’s oil water separator was inoperable, resulting in the accumulation of untreated oily water. On October 16, 26 and 27, 2015, the defendants operated the equipment in a way that bypassed safeguards that prevent the discharge of oily water, resulting in the discharge of more than 5,000 gallons of contaminated water. The indictment further alleges that the defendants concealed these incidents from the Coast Guard by making false statements to inspectors, and making false statements and omissions in the ship’s record book. When Coast Guard inspectors asked the engineers to operate the oil water separator during the inspection, the engineers did so in such a way that the equipment appeared to be working properly even though it was not, the Justice Dept. said.

The two engineers and the two companies operating the ship are charged with Falsification of Records in a Federal Investigation, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison, with Concealment of Material Information from the United States, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and with violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, which is punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. Each count of conviction is also punishable by a $500,000 fine.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 15, 2016, 09:13:32 pm

Agelbert NOTE: HONEY: Brought to you by better living through chemistry, cancers through pesticides derived from fossil fuel based hydrocarbon feed stock . ENJOY your Fossil Fuel and Chemical Industry EXTERNALIZED COSTS... (


57 different pesticides found in honeybees

Melissa Breyer (@MelissaBreyer)
Business / Corporate Responsibility
March 11, 2016

CC BY 2.0 Devcore

Using a new method to detect pesticides, researchers hope to get a handle on the toxic puzzle of bee poisonings.

This may be simplistic, but when an insect is subjected to a battery of pesticides, doesn’t it make sense that their population might suffer?

Since 2003 in North America and Europe the tragedy known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) has been wiping out bees. In Europe, the EPILOBEE project concludes that yearly colony mortality rates between 2012 and 2014 were up to 36 percent; in the U.S. data shows that annual colony losses reported by beekeepers reached up to 45 percent. As in, a lot of our bees are dying every year.

Scientists have been unable to pin responsibility to a single source; there seems to be a number of factors thrown into the mix, but not the least of which is pesticide exposure.

Yet even that is complicated. It’s not like there is just a pesticide or two as the culprit ... and the relationship between bees and pesticide is complex, say scientists. But now researchers from the National Veterinary Research Institute in Poland have developed a method for much more detailed analyses of pesticides – they can now analyze 200 pesticides at the same time – and results of their recent study using the method are eye-opening.


"Bee health is a matter of public concern
– bees are considered critically important for the environment and agriculture by pollinating more than 80 percent of crops and wild plants in Europe," said Tomasz Kiljanek, lead author of the study. "We wanted to develop a test for a large number of pesticides currently approved for use in the European Union to see what is poisoning the bees."

With so many pesticides currently in use, it's difficult to work out which ones are harming the bees. Certain combinations of pesticides, or their use over time, could affect honeybees in different ways. In order to understand what's really going on, we need to know which pesticides and at what concentration levels are present in honeybees, say the researchers.

What they found after investigating more than 70 honeybee poisoning incidents was the presence of 57 different pesticides present in the bees.


"This is just the beginning of our research on the impact of pesticides on honeybee health," said Kiljanek. "Honeybee poisoning incidents are the tip of the iceberg.

Even at very low levels, pesticides can weaken bees' defense systems, allowing parasites or viruses to kill the colony. Our results will help expand our knowledge about the influence of pesticides on honeybee health, and will provide important information for other researchers to better assess the risk connected with the mix of current used pesticides."

You can read more of the research in the Journal of Chromatography A.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2016, 09:04:19 pm

Penguin Swims 5,000 Miles Each Year to Visit the Man Who Rescued Him  (

Tex Dworkin, Care2 | March 14, 2016 12:20 pm


Joao Pereira de Souza lives in a fishing village just outside Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In 2011 he found a tiny penguin lying on some rocks at his local beach.

The creature was covered in oil and close to death.  :(

Joao cleaned the penguin, nursed him back to health and named him Dindim. Joao tried releasing the penguin, presumably never to meet again, but Dindim wasn’t ready to leave just yet. Joao recalls, “He stayed with me for 11 months and then, just after he changed his coat with new feathers, he disappeared.”

But that was not the last time the two would meet. So the story goes, over the past five years, Dindim has spent many months of the year with Joao and some believe he spends the rest of the time breeding off the coast of Argentina and Chile. ""
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2016, 09:57:25 pm

Environmental Factors Cause One Quarter of Global Deaths:

An estimated 12.6 million deaths each year are attributable to unhealthy environments (

News release

15 MARCH 2016 | GENEVA - An estimated 12.6 million people died as a result of living or working in an unhealthy environment in 2012 – nearly 1 in 4 of total global deaths, according to new estimates from WHO. Environmental risk factors, such as air, water and soil pollution, chemical exposures, climate change, and ultraviolet radiation, contribute to more than 100 diseases and injuries.

Noncommunicable diseases contribute to largest share of environment-related deaths

The second edition of the report, “Preventing disease through healthy environments: a global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks”, reveals that since the report was first published a decade ago, deaths due to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), mostly attributable to air pollution (including exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke), amount to as much as 8.2 million of these deaths. NCDs, such as stroke, heart disease, cancers and chronic respiratory disease, now amount to nearly two-thirds of the total deaths caused by unhealthy environments.

At the same time, deaths from infectious diseases, such as diarrhoea and malaria, often related to poor water, sanitation and waste management, have declined. Increases in access to safe water and sanitation have been key contributors to this decline, alongside better access to immunization, insecticide-treated mosquito nets and essential medicines.

Healthier environment: healthier people

“A healthy environment underpins a healthy population,” says Dr Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General. “If countries do not take actions to make environments where people live and work healthy, millions will continue to become ill and die too young.”

The report emphasizes cost-effective measures that countries can take to reverse the upward trend of environment-related disease and deaths. These include reducing the use of solid fuels for cooking and increasing access to low-carbon energy technologies.

“There’s an urgent need for investment in strategies to reduce environmental risks in our cities, homes and workplaces”, said Dr Maria Neira, WHO Director, Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. “Such investments can significantly reduce the rising worldwide burden of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, injuries, and cancers, and lead to immediate savings in healthcare costs.”

Environmental risks take their greatest toll on young children and older people, the report finds, with children under 5 and adults aged 50 to 75 years most impacted. Yearly, the deaths of 1.7 million children under 5 and 4.9 million adults aged 50 to 75 could be prevented through better environmental management. Lower respiratory infections and diarrhoeal diseases mostly impact children under 5, while older people are most impacted by NCDs.

Burden of disease in WHO Regions

Regionally, the report finds, low- and middle-income countries in the WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regions had the largest environment-related disease burden in 2012, with a total of 7.3 million deaths, most attributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution. Further regional statistics listed in the report include:

2.2 million deaths annually in African Region

847 000 deaths annually in Region of the Americas

854 000 deaths annually in Eastern Mediterranean Region

1.4 million deaths annually in European Region

3.8 million deaths annually in South-East Asia Region

3.5 million deaths annually in Western Pacific Region


Low- and middle-income countries bear the greatest environmental burden in all types of diseases and injuries, however for certain NCDs, such as cardiovascular diseases and cancers, the per capita disease burden can also be relatively high in high-income countries.

Top causes of environment-related deaths

Looking across more than 100 disease and injury categories, the report finds that the vast majority of environment-related deaths are due to cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke and ischaemic heart disease:

Stroke – 2.5 million deaths annually

Ischaemic heart disease – 2.3 million deaths annually

Unintentional injuries (such as road traffic deaths) – 1.7 million deaths annually

Cancers – 1.7 million deaths annually

Chronic respiratory diseases – 1.4 million deaths annually

Diarrhoeal diseases – 846 000 deaths annually

Respiratory infections – 567 000 deaths annually

Neonatal conditions – 270 000 deaths annually

Malaria – 259 000 deaths annually

Intentional injuries (such as suicides) – 246 000 deaths annually

Strategies to reduce environmental disease burden
The report cites proven strategies for improving the environment and preventing diseases. For instance, using clean technologies and fuels for domestic cooking, heating and lighting would reduce acute respiratory infections, chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and burns. Increasing access to safe water and adequate sanitation and promoting hand washing would further reduce diarrhoeal diseases.

Tobacco smoke-free legislation reduces exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, and thereby also reduces cardiovascular diseases and respiratory infections. Improving urban transit and urban planning, and building energy-efficient housing would reduce air pollution-related diseases and promote safe physical activity.
Many cities around the world are already implementing many of these cost-effective measures. Curitiba, Brazil has invested heavily in slum upgrading, waste recycling, and a popular “bus rapid transit” system which is integrated with green spaces and pedestrian walkways to encourage walking and cycling. Despite a five-fold population increase in the past 50 years, air pollution levels are comparatively lower than in many other rapidly growing cities and life expectancy is 2 years longer than the national average.

Through WHO’s water safety plans, which work to identify and address threats to drinking-water safety, Amarapuri, Nepal identified open defecation as a water quality hazard contributing to diseases in the area. As a result, the village built toilets for each household and was later declared an Open Defecation Free Zone by the local government.

Currently, WHO is working with countries to take action on both indoor and outdoor air pollution. At the World Health Assembly in May, WHO will propose a road map for an enhanced global response by the health sector aimed at reducing the adverse health effects of air pollution.

Note to editors:
The second edition of Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments:

Updates the 2006 publication and presents the latest evidence on environment-disease links and their devastating impact on global health.

Systematically analyses and quantifies how different diseases are impacted by environmental risks, detailing the regions and populations most vulnerable to environmentally mediated death, disease and injury.

Is exhaustive in its coverage. It examines the health impacts of environmental risks on more than 100 diseases and injuries. Some of these environmental factors are well known, such as unsafe drinking-water and sanitation, and air pollution and indoor stoves; others less so, such as climate change or the built environment.

Highlights promising areas for immediate intervention and gaps where further research is needed to establish the linkages and quantify the burden of disease for various environmental risk factors.

For more information, contact:

Christian Lindmeier
Communication Officer
Telephone: +41 22 791 3228
Mobile: +41 79 475 5556

Nada Osseiran
Technical Officer (Communications)
Telephone: +41 22 791 4475
Mobile: +41 79 445 1624

Kim Chriscaden
Telephone: +41 22 791 2885
Mobile: +41 79 603 1891
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 16, 2016, 10:03:06 pm
MOL Car Carrier Leaks Oil in Los Angeles Harbor  :P

March 15, 2016 by Mike Schuler

MV Istra Ace

The U.S. Coast Guard and California Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response are investigating an oil spill from a Bahamas-flagged car carrier that occurred on Sunday in the Los Angeles Harbor.

Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach command center received a report at 6:30 p.m., Sunday, of an unknown quantity of oil in the vicinity of the 577-foot cargo ship, Istra Ace. The ship was reported to have been leaking heavy fuel in the Cerritos channel at Berth 198, with oil also observed throughout portions of Cerritos Channel.

The Istra Ace is owned by Japanese shipping company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL).
A unified command has been established that includes the Coast Guard, California Fish and Wildlife, and the responsible party.

Coast Guard investigators from Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach, along with members of California Fish and Wildlife, Los Angeles Port Police and Los Angeles County Fire are assisting in the investigation and monitoring of the area.

The initial investigation onboard the Istra Ace revealed faulty piping that may have allowed oil to leak from the starboard side of the ship. A Coast Guard helicopter overflight and shoreline clean-up assessments occurred at first light Monday to help determine the extent of the oil spilled.

The Coast Guard issued a safety zone restricting recreational and commercial vessel traffic in the area, ensuring that vessels do not impede clean-up operations as well as avoid any possible contamination.

The responsible party has contracted with the National Response Corporation Environmental Services and other sub-contractors to assist in efforts to contain and clean the oil.

Currently, 15,600 feet of boom has been deployed around the vessel as well as at critical points in the channel. The boom has successfully contained the oil within the affected area preventing further contamination of the harbor. Contractors are continuing to clean with sweepers and sorbent pads in the affected area and also any affected shoreline, as well as deploy resources for removal of contamination from vessels, docks, pilings and other structures.

Due to response efforts, the operations of the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim Bridge have been temporarily suspended, restricting vessel traffic from transiting underneath the bridge. However, automobile traffic is not affected. On a case by case basis, requests to transit through the safety zone will be considered by the Unified Command.

At this time, there have been no confirmed reports of oiled wildlife.   (
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 18, 2016, 10:36:30 pm
China Contributes 10% of Human Influence on Climate Change   (
Roz Pidcock, Carbon Brief | March 18, 2016 9:27 am
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 18, 2016, 10:43:13 pm
5 Most Important Things to Know About China’s 5-Year Plan

Geoffrey Henderson, Ranping Song and Paul Joffe, World Resources Institute

March 18, 2016



Full article:

Agelbert COMMENT: Any port in the climate change storm is better than the denier idiocy of clinging to their profit over planet polluting fossil fuel "business model". All of us, including the Chinese, need to stop digging our grave.

There are still too many influential, but grossly irresponsible, people who do not care what damage they do to the environment as long as they profit from the damage ((i.e. "externalize" the costs) now and mostly future generations will have to deal with it.

"When men act for the sake of a future they will not live to see, it is for the most part out of love for persons, places and forms of activity, a cherishing of them, nothing more grandiose. It is indeed self-contradictory to say: 'I love him or her or that place or that institution or that activity, but I don't care what happens to it after my death.' To love is, amongst other things, to care about the future of what we love" (Passmore, 1980, p. 53)


Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 19, 2016, 04:09:43 pm
‘This Is the Video Future Generations Will Be Wishing Everyone Watched Today’

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 20, 2016, 07:36:07 pm
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 23, 2016, 03:24:04 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Another example of "responsible behavior" by a proud, prudent, hard working corporation of the fossil Fuel Industry (i. e. old Chapter 11 TRICK)...


Venoco files for bankruptcy a year after California spill

Nicolas Torres  March 23, 2016   

Colorado-based private upstream Venoco has become the latest firm to file for bankruptcy protection, citing continued financial strain stemming from a 2015 pipeline spill in California.

The company said Friday that it has reached an agreement with its senior lenders to reduce its debt load  ( and restructure its balance sheet.

Venoco cited low oil prices and the shutdown of Line 901 following a May 2015 oil spill in Santa Barbara as “serious problems” for the firm. (

According to a court filing seen by Bloomberg, the shutdown also halted production at the company’s South Elwood Field located about two miles off the coast of Santa Barbara.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said last month that preliminary findings indicate the spill was most likely caused by external pipeline corrosion.

The 48,000 barrel per day Line 901, operated by Plains All American, has been shutdown since the spill along with the nearby Line 903.

Venoco did not disclose the financial impact of the pipeline shutdowns.   (

“It is unfortunate that a third party pipeline spill has impacted Venoco, but this process  ( will make it stronger and ensure its continued contributions to the Santa Barbara County community,” Venoco founder Tim Marquez.

Under the terms of the agreement, the company’s senior lenders have agreed to support a restructuring transaction that will eliminate about $1 billion of debt from Venoco’s balance sheet.

To facilitate the restructuring, Venoco filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on March 18.

The company expects to maintain all operations during the restructuring process.    (

“While we continue to be in a strong cash position, the declining price of oil and the ongoing closure of Plains All American pipeline 901 continue to be serious problems. With this agreement, Venoco will be in a much stronger position to withstand these challenges and others that may follow,” Venoco CEO Mark DePuy  ( said.

The company said it has sufficient liquidity to continue its normal oil and gas activities and meet its ongoing financial and regulatory obligations.

Venoco expects existing liquidity and generated cash from ongoing operations will be used to support the company during the restructuring process once it receives approval from the Bankruptcy Court.

Marquez will remain executive chairman during the restructuring process and has been retained to “provide leadership and strategic counsel” to the firm after the restructuring is complete.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 26, 2016, 04:17:19 pm
Remembering Exxon Valdez: Obama Should Cancel Leases in Gulf and Arctic


Agelbert NOTE:
But the supreme Court Reduced the Damages award to ONE TENTH the original award in a cruel fascist mockery of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium (Latin legal maxim which means "where there is a right there is a remedy").
The Exxon Valdez settlement numbers (

Learned ethics free  counselor tells us how Exxon did what they did, as if that's just fine and dandy: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation. (

Margie Alt and Cindy Shogan | March 24, 2016 10:05 am


The devastation from the spill lingers. Crude oil remains beneath beaches. The orca whale population continues to struggle. Crab and shrimp populations have yet to fully recover.

The BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has surpassed the Exxon Valdez as the largest catastrophe in U.S. history. Shell’s Kulluk drill rig running aground on New Year’s Eve 2012 offered a new, horrific reminder of the risk of offering up one of the world’s most remote and diverse marine environments to oil and gas development.

And last week, the Obama administration issued its latest plan for more drilling and inevitable spilling. The proposal includes 10 new lease areas for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and three in Alaskan waters – two of which are located in the Arctic Ocean.

But many changes over the last three decades also point to a clean energy future. In fact, the scientific, economic and political momentum to stop new drilling proposals and wean ourselves off fossil fuels altogether is increasingly on our side.


Aglbert NOTE: Unfortunately, EVERY SINGLE DAY. at least one oil tanker somewhere in the world pollutes the ocean ROUTINELY when it dumps the sea water ballast it took in after delivering the crude oil load. And then there are spills that don't make the papers, but are also "accepted" by the oil industry as "worth it".

Finally, there are the tankers caught using "magic" pipes (failing to record this discharge of oil into the sea by way of the illegal pump system and overboard discharge valve) that bypass environmental laws and severely pollute the sea water around the tanker. ANY ship that uses ballast sea water mixed with some bunker oil doing the "magic pipe" thing also contributes to ocean pollution.Those captains caught are routinely given a slap on the wrist.

Again, we have a hydrocrabon happy talk "cost benefit" analysis that externalizes pollution BECAUSE IT CAN.

This is another reason that, in order to stop this type of ocean pollution (the nitrates from hydrocarbon feed stock based chemical fertilizers from farms is another challenge that must be addressed) degrading the ocean biomes, oil tankers should be scrapped and all other ships should NOT be allowed to run on fossil fuels, PERIOD.

Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 26, 2016, 04:39:12 pm
Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:16am GMT

China to halt construction on coal-fired power plants in 15 regions  (


Environmental group Greenpeace said the rules, if fully implemented, could involve up to 250 power projects with a total of 170 gigawatts (GW) in capacity, according to initial estimates.

"China is finally beginning to clamp down on its out of control coal power bubble," said Lauri Myllyvirta, Greenpeace's senior campaigner on coal, in an emailed statement.

"However, these new measures fall far short of even halting the build-up of overcapacity in coal-fired power generation, let alone beginning to reduce it," he said.

China's total generation capacity reached 1,485.8 GW by the end of February, up 11.8 percent year on year, according to the latest figures. Thermal power, which mostly consists of coal-fired capacity, rose 9.4 percent on the year to 1,003.8 GW.
Title: Re: Pollution
Post by: AGelbert on March 26, 2016, 04:52:05 pm

It’s Beyond Time Coal Mining Outlaws ( Are Held Accountable
Jeff Biggers | March 22, 2016 9:08 am


Fracking and natural gas may have brought Big Coal to its k