New Rule: Television Networks Have to Quit Trying to Put a Happy Ending on America's Wealth Disparity

As irritated as I can get with Bill Maher at times -- and tonight was no exception, with him putting on one of the embarrassments to my city on his show that rates right in there with The Gateway Pundit for making St. Louisians look like fools, namely Dana Loesch -- I'd say Maher got this one right, with reality television and the real income disparity in the United States that they're glossing over. Maher: America's rich aren't giving you money, they're taking your money. Between the years 1980 and 2005 80% of all new income generated in this country went to the richest 1%. Let me put that in terms that even you fatass teabaggers, I'm sorry, can understand. Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives and the first guy takes 80 slices. And if someone suggests, why don't you just take 79 slices, that's socialism! I know, I know. I know, I know, it's just a TV show. But it does reinforce the stupid idea people have that rich people would love us and share with us if only they got to walk a mile in our cheap plastic shoes. But they're the reason the shoe factory moved to China. We have this fantasy that our interests and the interests of the super rich are the same. Like somehow the rich will eventually get so full that they'll explode. And the candy will rain down on the rest of us. Like there's some kind of pinata of benevolence. But here's the thing about a pinata. It doesn't open on its own. You have to beat it with a stick. To which teabagger Loesch gets terribly upset with the "tone" of Bill's rhetoric which he rightfully ignored because anyone who follows Maher knows he's not talking about literally beating the hell out of anyone here and it's a metaphor for forcing them to do what's right through other means like protests and the political process. That said, I'm sure him joking about dropping Greenspan in with a bunch of poor people will be something she'll be blogging about to take literally as well. Maher: So I say, forget Secret Millionaire, I have a better idea for a show. Every week one of the men responsible for the global financial meltdown is dropped into a poor neighborhood and... and that's it. No cameras. We just leave him there. I call it I'm Alan Greenspan, get me out of here. It's a sad state of affairs that our country has been left in by corporate greed and the fact that most of the have-mores could care less about the American worker. Thank you, Bill, for giving the working class a voice on the subject. It almost makes me want to forgive you for having Dana Loesch on as a guest. If you're running short on suggestions for who to have on your show, I could give you at least fifty or a hundred as I'm sure the readers here at C&L could as well who would make for better conversation than Loesch.

Globalisation and agriculture industry exacerbating bee decline, says UN | Environment | The Guardian

Diseases and pests that kill bees are being spread by global trade, says the UN report. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

UN report says massing bees in huge hives to address 'colony collapse disorder' only helps pests and diseases breed

• Alison Benjamin: UN report into mass honeybee deaths provides no simple solution

Globalisation is killing bees, as bee pests and diseases are being passed swiftly around the world thanks to the opening up of trade, says a UN study. Attempts to industrialise pollination are making the problem even worse, the authors found.

Unexplained bee deaths have become an increasing issue around the world in the past five years, a phenomenon labelled "colony collapse disorder". Bees in the US, Europe and Asia have been affected, though it is hard to gather reliable data on how many of them died. Some bee colonies die off naturally all the time, chiefly in winter, but the scale of the demise reported by beekeepers has prompted governments and scientists to examine why bees appear to be under threat, and in some cases to try to get around the problem by changing the ways bees are kept.

But attempts by the agricultural industry to halt the fall in bee numbers through breeding programmes and massing bees in huge hives are only exacerbating the problem, a UN official told the Guardian, because industrialised hives create the ideal breeding conditions for some of the very pests and fungal diseases seemingly responsible for many of the bee deaths. Moving the hives from farm to farm to encourage pollination then spreads the diseases further.

"We are creating the ideal conditions in the man-made hives that promote pests chemical contamination and other factors," the official said. "This is the irony and [it is] not just confined to bees – one thinks of natural forests versus plantations and monoculture crops [which are also more susceptible to disease]."

The UN Environment Programme concluded in the report – titled Global Bee Colony Disorders and Other Threats To Insect Pollinators – that "more than a dozen factors" were behind the bee deaths, including air pollution, new fast-spreading fungal diseases and varieties of parasites such as the varroa mite, as well as the loss of habitat for wild flowers in intensively farmed areas.

The increased use of pesticides, including broad spectrum and systemic pesticides, which are absorbed by plants and can be expressed in pollen and nectar, appears to be another important factor, according to the UN. It said that when some pesticides are allowed to combine, they form a potentially lethal cocktail that can damage bees' sense of direction and memory.

The scientists were unable to pinpoint which were the most important factors, suggesting instead that more research was needed. Last year a £10m British research project was launched to study the decline of bees.

Researchers are concerned that the loss in numbers of pollinators, given the growing global population, could lead to serious problems with food supply in the medium term. Of the 100 crop species that provide 90 per cent of the world's food, more than 70 are pollinated by bees, contributing about $200bn a year to the global economy.

Achim Steiner, the executive director of UNEP, said: "The way humanity manages or mismanages its nature-based assets, including pollinators, will in part define our collective future in the 21st century. Human beings have fabricated the illusion that in the 21st century they have the technological prowess to be independent of nature. Bees underline the reality that we are more, not less dependent on nature's services in a world of close to seven billion people".

The report suggested that as many as 20,000 flowering plant species upon which bees depend could go extinct, if conservation efforts failed. Air pollution is also making it harder for bees to find the plants – scents that could carry 800m in the 19th century may travel only about 200m today, which impairs bees' ability to find food.

Martin Smith, the president of the British Beekeepers Association, welcomed the UNEP report, and said: "The BBKA calls on the UK government not only to take action to protect existing habitats but to find the ways and means to create new habitats beneficial to bees and other pollinators. We urge increased planting of wild flower margins around agricultural fields and also stronger guidance to local authorities on increasing flowering trees and wild flower planting in towns and cities."

Why All Your Bulbs May Soon Be LEDs

A breakthrough [1] in producing light emitting diodes could see LED production costs tumble as much as 75%. That's thanks to research [2] by a startup called Bridgelux [3], which has resulted [4] in a radical shift--Gallium-nitride LEDs can now be grown on silicon substrates for the first time in a "commercial grade."

The tech leverages the huge, ultra precise and far cheaper silicon wafers that are used in silicon chip manufacture instead of the smaller, more expensive sapphire ones. The breakthrough has been to successfully grow white LEDs [5] on a silicon substrate to create devices that produce 135 lumens per watt of electrical power--well above what typical CFL bulbs can offer, and around 10 times better than old incandescent bulbs.

So how big a deal is this? Pretty darn big. After all, did you know that those tiny flickering LED lights that sprinkle the power buttons of pretty much every device you own often need sapphires as part of their production?

Sapphire is key [6] to producing white LEDs. It's artificially grown, rather than being dug up from the rock, but it's pretty much the same as the precious gem material you're probably thinking of--meaning it's rather expensive. Slabs of crystalline sapphire about four inches in size act as a substrate during LED production: The complex layered recipe of semiconductor chemicals that actually make up the LED devices is "grown" in various process on the precise surface of the sapphire, and then cleaved from it at the end before being chopped up and packed into the more familiar dome-shaped LED unit.

But sapphire is part of the main problem facing wider adoption of LED lighting--it makes the cost of high-brightness white LED light bulbs prohibitive compared to compact fluorescent bulbs, and many times more expensive than incandescent bulbs: $40 is a pretty common price bracket for LED bulbs that put out the equivalent light of a 60-cent 60W incandescent unit. Yet many people desire the LED tech very much because the bulbs can have an incredibly long life span, measured in tens of thousands of hours, and they consume much less electricity than their older equivalents.

Now Bridgelux thinks that after the two to three years needed to ramp its new tech up to production scale, the cost of producing LEDs will drop by three-fourths. Ten times greater electrical efficiency, ten times the lifespan of old bulbs and a much more affordable cost? Yup--soon every light you encounter may be an LED one.

Boycott List | Scott Walker Watch

Boycott List --> http://scottwalkerwatch.com/?page_id=979

boy·cott


–verb (used with object)


to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.


to abstain from buying or using: to boycott foreign products.

Wisconsin Unions Call For Boycott Of Local Bank Over Walker Support, Withdraw Funds

M&I Bank denies making contributions to Gov. Scott Walker with the old "corporations aren't permitted to make campaign contributions." (Which isn't exactly true anymore since Citizens United, but perhaps Wisconsin has its own restrictions. Whatever.) In any event, bank executives and employees are seen as strong backers of Walker, and now that's made them a target:

Madison -- Teachers, firefighters and police officers said they would begin a boycott of M&I Bank if the bank does not begin publicly opposing Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to curtail collective bargaining for public workers.

Unions representing those groups said they would start other boycotts of businesses that backed Walker in his campaign.

The letter to M&I President Tom Ellis said the boycott would begin March 17 if the bank hasn't opposed Walker's efforts by then.

"In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company," the letter says. "However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table."

So many protesters showed up, they had to close the bank:

M&I Bank's branch on the Capitol Square, at 1 W. Main St., closed Thursday after demonstrators, protesting campaign contributions by bank executives to Gov. Scott Walker, gathered outside the bank and several pulled their money out.

Sara Schmitz, a spokeswoman for M&I in Milwaukee, said in an e-mail the bank shut its doors "under the advisement of the Madison Police Department and due to the significant number of protesters surrounding the Capitol."

Madison police said hundreds of people had gathered at the front entrance to the bank.

"(The) concern was if the crowd continued to grow, it would be difficult for us to guarantee access and safety for those trying to get in and out of the bank," police spokesman Joel DeSpain said. He said police did not tell M&I officials to close the bank.

Members of several labor unions stopped at M&I twice between 9 and 9:30 a.m., said Joe Conway, Jr., president of Local 311 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The protest was peaceful, he said.

Several protesters went inside and closed their accounts, displaying checks that totaled $192,000 withdrawn, Conway said. Schmitz declined to comment about any withdrawals.

Eco-Farming Can Double Food Production in 10 Years, Says New UN Report | Cornucopia Institute

March 8th, 2011

SRFood.org

GENEVA – Small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods, a new UN report* shows. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest.

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,” says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report. “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live – especially in unfavorable environments.”

Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.

“To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”

“Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation — and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources. Malawi, a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3
tons/ha.”

The report also points out that projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh recorded up to 92 % reduction in insecticide use for rice, leading to important savings for poor farmers.

“Knowledge came to replace pesticides and fertilizers. This was a winning bet, and comparable results abound in other African, Asian and Latin American countries,” the independent expert notes.

“The approach is also gaining ground in developed countries such as United States, Germany or France,” he said. “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”

The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.

“The approach is also gaining ground in developed countries such as United States, Germany or France,” he said. “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”
The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.

“Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don’t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food also urges States to support small-scale farmer’s organizations, which demonstrated a great ability to disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members.

Strengthening social organization proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter explains. “We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

“If key stakeholders support the measures identified in the report, we can see a doubling of food production within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. “Whether or not we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and climate disasters in the 21st century.”

(*) The report “Agro-ecology and the right to food” was presented before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. This document is available in English, French, Spanish, Chinese and Russian at: www.srfood.org andhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/annual.htm

Olivier De Schutter was appointed the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in May 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is independent from any government or organization. For more information on the mandate and work of the Special Rapporteur, visit: www.srfood.org or http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/index.htm

Press contacts:
Olivier De Schutter: Tel. +32.488 48 20 04 / E-mail:olivier.deschutter@uclouvain.be
Ulrik Halsteen (OHCHR): Tel: +41 22 917 93 23 / E-mail: uhalsteen@ohchr.org

UN Says No to Factory Farming

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food recently presented his new report “Agro-ecology and the right to food” before the UN Human Rights Council.


Based on an extensive review of recent scientific literature, the report demonstrates that agroecology, if sufficiently supported, candouble food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.


The report therefore calls for a fundamental shift towards agro-ecology as a way for countries to feed themselves while addressing climate and poverty challenges.


In a press release, Special Rapporteur Mr. De Schutter said “To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available.”


And, if you were to ask the top execs of the world’s biggest agricultural corporations, they might tell you that their most efficient farming techniques rely on massive amounts of pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, genetically modified seeds, growth hormones, steroids, animal mistreatment, lakes of animal waste, pollution of ground water, etc.

Then again. They might not tell you that.

But, Mr. De Schutter will tell us that “today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live – especially in unfavorable environments.”

Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.

“To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”

“Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation — and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources. Malawi, a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3 tons/ha.”

The report also points out that projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh recorded up to 92 % reduction in insecticide use for rice, leading to important savings for poor farmers.

“Knowledge came to replace pesticides and fertilizers. This was a winning bet, and comparable results abound in other African, Asian and Latin American countries,” the independent expert notes.

“The approach is also gaining ground in developed countries such as United States, Germany or France,” he said. “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”

The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.

“Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don’t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food also urges States to support small-scale farmer’s organizations, which demonstrated a great ability to disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members.

Strengthening social organization proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter explains. “We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

“If key stakeholders support the measures identified in the report, we can see a doubling of food production within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. “Whether or not we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and climate disasters in the 21st century.”

So, what happens now?

What does the UN Human Rights Council do with this report?
Stick it on a shelf and ignore it?
Suggest it as required reading to President Barack Obama?
Or do they push hard to implement the report’s recommendations?

Unfortunately, we have to consider that up until very recently, the UN Human Right Council has counted Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi as one of their own. And any organization that thinks Gaddafi is a poster boy for human rights probably isn’t too worried about the quality of life for poor African farmers.

Reference
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Press Release

About the Author (Author Profile)
Doug is a personal trainer, a fitness blogger and author, a competitive athlete, and a student of nutrition and exercise science. Since 2008, Doug has expanded his impact by bringing his real-world experience online via health & fitness articles at Health Habits.

Then They Came for the Trade Unionists

Thursday 10 March 2011
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin) is under fire for his budget proposal that eliminates collective bargaining rights for public sector union workers. (Image:Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted:Megan McCormick / Flickr)

On this day, it behooves us to remember the words of Martin Niemoller.

"First they came for the communists," he wrote, "and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

I am a trade unionist, and yesterday in Wisconsin, they came for me. They came for you. They came for every working person in America, and their intent could not be more clear. Governor Scott Walker, along with the Koch Brothers and the right-wing radicals of the Republican Party, moved in darkness and with shameless deceit to gut the ability of dedicated laborers to bargain on an equal footing for the right to earn a living wage and to have access to decent health care.


Among other things, the bill as passed allows the state to fire anyone who participates in a strike. The story of the 20th century was written by workers who dared to face the truncheon in order to fight for their basic rights, and the strike was integral to that struggle. Any Wisconsin worker who dares to stand in defiance of The Bosses now faces personal annihilation, not just for themselves, but for their family. America was made in the struggle of union workers standing shoulder to shoulder in defiance of the idea that being rich means being right. That struggle is now in mortal peril, and the outcome affects all of us.


Fairness and the rule of law had no place in Wednesday's filthy action. This move was done in secret, without notice or announcement as required by Wisconsin law, and bears the stamp of the cowards and cretins who are responsible. Similar anti-worker legislation has been unfolding in Ohio, Indiana, Florida and more than a dozen other states. Those responsible claim such actions are necessary because of economic concerns, but the Wisconsin perpetrators tipped their hand. They stripped the bill in question of anything having to do with the state budget, so as to give them the chance to vote without a quorum...but the entire premise of their anti-union attack was that the destruction of collective bargaining was needed to salvage the state's financial situation. By gutting the bill of any semblance of budgetary issues, all they were left with is what they were after in the first place: the end of collective bargaining, the end of unions altogether, and by proxy, the end of the Democratic Party.


Eric Kleefeld, the excellent reporter for TalkingPointsMemo, and a Wisconsin native, exposed the endgame thusly:


The Democratic Party in Wisconsin is, to an extent that is not true in most other states, a genuine labor party -- a party that is intertwined with unions at the institutional level, with many politicians who have also been union officials or done legal work with unions, and which speaks for organized labor in key debates. They in turn compete with the Republican Party, which represents business interests as embodied by the state's Chamber group, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, in what has until now been a sometimes uneasy but nevertheless predictable political system.



In short, unions in Wisconsin are not just economic organizations made up of their respective workers - they arepolitical institutions that are a major part of the state. As such, a change to the state's union laws that would threaten the existence of organized labor would in turn threaten the existence of the Democratic Party itself in Wisconsin, as people have known it for over half a century -- something that state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) may have accidentally alluded to earlier today.


On top of that, the class consciousness was especially ignited by Walker's phone call two weeks ago with blogger Ian Murphy, who was posing as Republican financier David Koch. During that call, Walker discussed his ideas for tricking the Democrats into coming back by pretending to negotiate, his ambition to bust the public employee unions in the mold of President Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, and that he had considered (but ruled out) planting troublemakers in the crowds of protesters. But beyond the specifics, the optics alone were amazing: The state's governor was seen buddying up to someone he believed to be a mega-rich donor from out of state.


Get Truthout in your inbox every day! Click here to sign up for free updates.


Say what you will about the Democratic Party. For my part, I can say plenty, especially about President Obama's total absence during the three weeks this struggle has been going on, and about the White House's angry insistence that the fight in Wisconsin is merely "a distraction."


All Party nonsense aside, this is about a governor attacking people who work for a living, because they have the gall to believe standing together to fight for simple things like fair wages and basic health care is more important than a failing governor's ego or political aspirations.


The fact of the matter is that Governor Walker has unleashed a frontal assault on working people in his state because wealthy corporatists believe "Because I Say So" is enough. Make no mistake, friends. This is class warfare. It is brazen, unmistakable, and now out in the open. They have so much, but they want more. It has been made all too clear that they will gut your life, your rights, your everything, in order to get what they want, and what they want is absolute and total control.


Mr. Niemoller wrote his poem decades ago. It might read like this today:


First they declared corporations were "people," and I didn't complain because I'm already a person.


Then they made unlimited money "speech," and I didn't complain because the American Dream says I'll be rich someday, too.


Then they commandeered the means of production by shipping our greatest strength - manufacturing - overseas, because they don't have bothersome unions over there, and I didn't complain because WalMart has cheap stuff.


Then they bought Congress so they could write the laws, and I didn't complain because I can’t be bothered to vote.


Then they bought the Supreme Court so they could cement their rule, and I didn't complain because I don't have time to pay attention.


Then they bought the news so they could convince everyone it's always been this way, and I didn't complain because it's always been this way.


Then they manhandled an election and I didn't complain because I'm not from Florida.


Then they lied us into wars and I didn't complain because I'm not a soldier, or an Iraqi, or an Afghani.


Then millions died for profit and I didn't complain because the graphics on the news were totally awesome.


Then they started locking people up because they said they could and I didn't complain because nobody locked me up.


Then they started spying on everyone because they said they could and I didn't complain because I'm a real American.


Then they came for the worker, but thanks to supply-side trickle-down economics, I don't have a job.


This truth is self-evident.


They are coming for you, and they are relentless.


Stand up.


For your country, for your family, for yourself.


Stand up.


Be heard.


Strike!


Go.

US navy faces up to a new enemy – climate change - environment - 10 March 2011 - New Scientist

Northern exposure (Image: airman 1st class Jonathan Steffen/US air force)

Climate change could take the US navy into treacherous waters. It will have to raise its game in a thawing Arctic and prepare coastal bases to cope with rising sea levels, concludes a review carried out for the navy by the National Research Council (NRC).

The US Congress may still question the science of climate change, but the Pentagon already thinks a changing climate will be a significant influence on the future security environment. It said as much in last year'sQuadrennial Defence Review Report.

In 2009, chief of naval operations Gary Roughead commissioned the NRC to study the national security implications of climate change for the US navy. The results of that study, published today, conclude that the Arctic is a key challenge for the US – one of five countries with territory inside the Arctic circle.

In 2007, the fabled Northwest Passage along Canada and Alaska opened for the first time as a result of retreating sea ice. It is expected to become navigable – albeit probably still dangerous – by 2030. That will open the region to shipping, tourists and the exploitation of rich natural resources.

Maritime boundaries that determine who controls resources are already in dispute in the area. "The possibility of conflict is low, but it is still real," says the NRC panel co-chair Antonio Busalacchi at the University of Maryland in College Park. That makes the presence of the US navy or coastguard desirable to support the nation's interests and protect its citizens in the area.

Cold case

Yet the US has largely ignored the inhospitable Arctic in the two decades since the end of the cold war. "As a nation, we've lost some of our experience and edge in cold regions," says Busalacchi. Special equipment and training are? needed for Arctic operations: for instance, communication links degrade because areas north of the Arctic circle are out of normal range of the satellites in geosynchronous orbit that the navy uses. The US now has just three icebreakers – and two of them are over 30 years old. Of the other four nations with Arctic territory, Russia has 18 icebreakers, Finland and Sweden have seven each, and Canada has six.

To address these problems, the NRC panel urges the navy to build partnerships with other countries operating in the Arctic and to develop new navigation and communications techniques.

The sea-level rises predicted to follow global warming also pose a direct threat to naval facilities, most of which, obviously, lie along coasts. A survey for last year's quadrennial review found that 56 of the 103 navy bases that responded would be vulnerable to a 1-metre rise in sea level, which the panel considers likely by the end of this century. The report says these facilities are worth about $100 billion, and encourages the navy to identify which are at most risk from storm surges and sea-level rise, take steps to defend them, and develop models to predict future risks.

Air Near Factory Farms Dirtier Than Most Polluted Cities, Study Finds

By Robyn Griggs Lawrence

The air at some factory farm test sites in the United States is dirtier than in America’s most polluted cities and exposes workers to pollutant concentrations far above occupational safety guidelines, according to a new report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). The pollution levels are high enough to suggest that those living near massive livestock operations also may be at risk. Estimated emission levels for some pollutants were higher at some test sites than amounts reported by large industrial plants.

The EIP report calls for reversal of a 2008 Bush Administration deal that gave concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) amnesty from federal pollution reporting rules. Many CAFOs pollute in quantities large enough to trigger emission reporting laws, and Clean Air Act protections may be warranted to protect rural citizens, the EIP states.

“No other major industry in the U.S. would be permitted to pollute at these levels without EPA oversight,”said attorney and report author Tarah Heinzen. “Our findings indicate that citizens near factory farms may be breathing unsafe levels of small particle pollution, ammonia and other toxic gases, and that EPA's failure to regulate air pollution from these operations may threaten public health. It is time for EPA to overturn the Bush Administration’s backroom deals with the factory farm industry and begin applying consistent federal standards to all major polluters.”

Among the EIP report’s key findings:

*The EPA/industry study measured levels of particle pollution—which can damage lungs and heart and cause premature death—well above Clean Air Act health-based limits at some sites. Fine particle pollution was much higher than the federal 24-hour exposure limit on the worst days at 6 of 15 study sites, including 5 poultry operations in California, Indiana, and North Carolina, and a Washington dairy. Peak 24-hour exposures at two henhouses in California and one in Indiana were more than three times higher than EPA’s 35 microgram standard.

* Based on sampling results, 11 of 14 CAFOs in the study emit more than 100 pounds of ammonia—which can damage the respiratory system and is life-threatening at high concentrations—on average days, which triggers pollution reporting requirements for non-livestock industries. Some CAFOs emitted thousands of pounds on their worst days. These include hog CAFOs in Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma and North Carolina, dairies in Indiana, Washington and Wisconsin, and egg layer or broiler chicken facilities in California, Indiana and North Carolina.

* Some large hog and dairy CAFOs release more than 100 pounds of hydrogen sulfide--which causes respiratory symptoms, damages the eyes, and is fatal at high concentrations. Texas has established an enforceable air quality standard of 80 parts per billion of hydrogen sulfide averaged over half an hour. The air around seven hog and dairy sites – nearly half of the confinements studied – exceeded this level for entire days during the study. Long-term ambient levels of hydrogen sulfide were also significantly higher than EPA’s reference concentration of 1 ppb at most study sites.”

Read more: http://www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx?id=2147493922#ixzz1GFdevzDu

Begin With Biochar

KrisCan joins David Yarrow during a biochar experiment with artist Sara Worden where David describes the benefits of biochar - from soil remediation to carbon sequestration to potential fuel source. He explains how we need to continue testing this technology to understand better how it works and that it should be an application everyone uses in their gardens to both enrich the soil food web while helping to pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

Debunking the stubborn myth that only industrial ag can ‘feed the world’ | Grist

by Tom Philpott 10 Mar 2011

Organic ag could keep markets brimming with food. I've written about it once already, but I want to return to The Economist's recent special series about how industrial agriculture is the true and only way to feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit the world by 2050. The framing, I think, is extremely interesting.

The widely revered magazine identifies two strains of thought on the food system's future: one serious and one frivolous.

The serious one -- made up of "food companies, plant breeders, and international development agencies" -- is "concerned mainly with feeding the world's growing population," which it plans to do "through the spread of modern farming, plant research and food processing in poor countries."

The frivolous one -- "influential among non-governmental organizations and some consumers" -- "concentrates more on the food problems of richer countries, such as concerns about animal welfare and obesity," The Economist writes. This group fixates on the question of "what should we have for dinner," but has little to say about feeding the globe's growing population. And since The Economist's special report "concentrates on the problems of feeding the 9 billion," not the trivial omnivorous dilemmas of wealthy Berkeleyites, the magazine throws its lot in with the companies, plant breeders, and international development agencies -- the Serious People Looking for Real Solutions for Feeding the World.

I'm focusing on this Economist spread because I think it beautifully exemplifies (and reinforces) the conventional wisdom on the future of food.

President Obama displayed his fealty to it by placing an agrichemical-industry lobbyist in charge of agricultural trade negotiations and by tapping a Monsanto-funded scientist to lead the USDA's research program.

USDA chief Tom Vilsack expresses it when he natters on about ramming open foreign markets to our surplus farm products.

Nina Fedoroff, until recently the State Department's chief science advisor, promotes it every chance she gets. She has moved on from shaping U.S. foreign policy on ag science to another influential position: president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The globe's best-endowed grantmaker, the Gates Foundation, endorses it every time it cuts a deal with agribusiness giants like Monsanto and BASF.

The problem is, the conventional wisdom is wrong -- or, at the very least, much more contested than its champions let on. The Economist insisted that international development agencies had embraced Big Ag as the solution to the globe's food problem, but that simply isn't true.

Indeed, for years now, a steady stream of reports has emerged from the development agencies calling for new directions. In 2008, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development and the U.N. Environment Program issued a paper [PDF] called "Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa." It reads like a direct refutation of The Economist's claims. The report concludes:

Organic agriculture can increase agricultural productivity and can raise incomes with low-cost, locally available and appropriate technologies, without causing environmental damage. Furthermore, evidence shows that organic agriculture can build up natural resources, strengthen communities and improve human capacity, thus improving food security by addressing many different causal factors simultaneously ... Organic and near-organic agricultural methods and technologies are ideally suited for many poor, marginalized smallholder farmers in Africa, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a whole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress.

That same year, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report [PDF] that echoed those conclusions. Entitled "Mitigating Climate Change, Providing Food Security and Self-Reliance for Rural Livelihoods," the report points to the Tigray area of Ethiopia, "previously known as one of the most degraded Regions of Ethiopia." There, more than 20,000 farming families saw yields of major cereals and pulses nearly double "using ecological agricultural practices such as composting, water and soil conservation activities, agroforestry, and crop diversification" -- even as "the use of chemical fertilizers ... steadily decreased." The phaseout of synthetic and mined fertilizers was key, because "most poor farmers, particularly in degraded lands and in market-marginalized areas, are not able to afford external inputs," the report states.

Perhaps even more crucially, the FAO researchers found that "ecological agriculture" could "assist farmers in adapting to climate change" by making farm fields more resilient to stress. So why isn't eco-agriculture catching on? The report cites a bevy of obstacles, none of them technological:

[L]ack of policy support at local, national, regional and international levels, resource and capacity constraints, and a lack of awareness and inadequate information, training and research on ecological agriculture at all levels.

At a conference in 2009, the FAO once again bluntly contradicted the conventional wisdom. "In the name of intensification in many places around the world, farmers over-ploughed, over-fertilized, over-irrigated, over-applied pesticides," Shivaji Pandey, director of FAO's Plant Production and Protection Division, declared. "But in so doing we also affected all aspects of the soil, water, land, biodiversity and the services provided by an intact ecosystem. That began to bring yield growth rates down."

In place of industrial methods, Pandey called for "conservation agriculture," which he described as a "farming system that does not use regular ploughing and tillage but promotes permanent soil cover and diversified crop rotation to ensure optimal soil health and productivity."

Then there's the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Under the auspices of the United Nations, World Bank, World Health Organization, and other institutions, the IAASTD gathered 400 scientists and development experts from dozens of nations to assess the very problems examined by The Economist. A three-year project, it has been called the IPCC of agriculture.

Its conclusion [PDF]: agroecological practices -- including the very organic-farming techniques scorned by The Economist -- are at least as important as agrichemicals and biotechnology in terms of "feeding the world" in the decades to come. As for the alleged panacea of genetically modified seeds, the IAASTD was so unenthusiastic about GMOs that Croplife International, the trade group for the globe's dominant GMO/agrichemical purveyors, angrily pulled out [PDF] of participation shortly before its release -- as, disgracefully, did the U.S. and Canadian governments in solidarity.

Just last week, the U.N. Environment Program yet again came out against Big Ag, this time as part of its broad Green Economy initiative. The agency released an advance copy of a report called "Agriculture: Investing in Natural Capital." It amounts to a blistering assault on the agribusiness-as-usual model. It briskly names the main problems with the goal of spreading U.S.-style industrial agriculture to the global south:

Conventional/industrial agriculture is energy- and input-intensive. Its high productivity relies on the extensive use of petrochemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, water, and continuous new investment (e.g. in advanced seed varieties and machinery).

In place of the industrial model, the report calls for what it terms "green agriculture," characterized by low-tech, high-skilled methods like "restoring and enhancing soil fertility through the increased use of naturally and sustainably produced nutrient inputs; diversified crop rotations; and livestock and crop integration." In other words, the basic tenants of organic agriculture, which were developed by an English plant pathologist working with Indian peasant farmers in the first half of the 20th century.

Such agriculture can indeed "feed the 9 billion," to use The Economist's phrase. The report concludes that "use of green agricultural practices and technologies" can boost global per capita calorie availability from today's 2,800 to around 3,200 calories by 2050. And it can do so in a way that doesn't drive millions of smallholder farmers off the land and into overcrowded cities, like the so-called Green Revolution transition to industrial farming in the ‘60s and ‘70s did in South Asia. "Green agriculture has the potential to be a net creator of jobs that provides higher return on labour inputs than conventional agriculture," the report states.

Transitioning to green agriculture will take serious investment, the report acknowledges: $198 billion per year from 2011 to 2050. But the original Green Revolution required massive investments, too -- as do present-day schemes that involve "feeding the world" with patented biotech seeds, large-scale machines, and chemical fertilizers. And investing in green ag offers high returns:

Studies suggest that "Return on investments (ROI) in agricultural knowledge, science and technology across commodities, countries and regions on average are high (40-50 per cent) and have not declined over time. ... In terms of social gains, the Asian Development Bank Institute concluded that investment needed to move a household out of poverty through engaging farmers in organic agriculture could be only US$32 to US$38 per capita

This latest report confirms that there is indeed a consensus forming in development-policy circles on the feed-the-world question, but it's the opposite of what The Economist presented. Green ag, not Big Ag, points the way forward.

The question becomes, why are so many influential commentators behind the curve? How can The Economist so confidently contradict the emerging consensus? (I can't resist noting that in the acknowledgments to its special food series, the magazine named as sources Monsanto, Syngenta, the Monsanto-funded Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, and Kraft Foods, along with the World Bank and the FAO.) Why did Obama staff his ag-policy positions with people who act like they've never heard anything but Big Ag propaganda? When is the Gates Foundation going to move its considerable resources behind green ag? How can a smart writer like The Washington Post's ace political blogger Ezra Klein blithely declare, as he did last year, that "Industrial farms are the future," citing a half-baked newspaper report?

Perhaps the tide will turn with the ascension of veteran food writer Mark Bittman to The New York Times op-ed page -- still probably the nation's most influential opinion forum. In his latest column, published today, Bittman teases out the implications of the new U.N. report. Are you listening, President Obama and Mr. Gates?

Tom Philpott is Grist’s senior food and agriculture writer.

Interview of John Miedema, director for biomass energy with a timber company in the Paciic Northwest, about biochar

Improving sustainability through developments in biochar

Carbon, or more speciically carbon dioxide, building up in earth’s atmosphere is considered by many scientists to be one of the planet’s most dificult and pressing problems. Biochar may become a signiicant part of the solution.

Biochar, the solid carbon rich byproduct produced when biomass (organic matter) is converted to energy in a low oxygen environment (pyrolysis) has potential for beneicial use in agriculture and environmental remediation. Biochar carbon compounds are very stable in soil as compared to carbon compounds present in fresh organic matter. Carbon from unprocessed plant material would enter back into the atmosphere in a matter of decades. Biochar, on the other hand, wouldn’t cycle back into the atmosphere for 1,000 years. Biochar has potential economic and environmental beneits because it contributes to long-term carbon sequestration, assists in building soil fertility and in remediation of contaminated soils and watersheds.

The biochar concept has challenged scientists to igure out the best approach to turning waste organic material into stable carbon. This exciting new development has attracted the attention of researchers like John Miedema.

Miedema is collaborating on biochar research with Oregon State University and USDA-ARS and is funded by a Western Oregon timber company. He was an early adopter of the global warming concept, and is concerned with mitigating the amount of excess CO2 being deposited in the Earth’s atmosphere. He’s also concerned about devising new methods to feed the population of the world.

“We burn fossil fuels to produce our nitrogen fertilizers,” Miedema said. “As the supply is reduced the price of production and transportation of those fertilizers will go up. The implications of high prices and food riots is signiicant. This is a problem we have to igure out sooner than later.”

He hopes to address numerous problems facing the population of the world and the pollution we create.

Oscahering's Biochar Channel-Chip Energy Videos

Chip Energy Videos - Just released many videos of their Big and Medium sized Biochar TLUD industrial Biomass Furnaces

4:46

TYPES OF BIOCHAR

3:56

Medium sized Biochar Unit. Part1.MP4

4:41

BIG BIOCHAR UNIT PART1.MP4

2:40

Medium Biochar Unit Part2.MTS

1:54

GRILL DESIGN PART2

0:55

BIG BIOCHAR UNIT PART2.MP4

4:58

SMALL UNITS PART2

9:44

GRILL DESIGN PART1

1:46

SMALL UNITS AFTER BURN

1:39

SMALL UNITS PART1

1:29

Medium Biochar Unit Part3.MTS