2. U.N.'s 7 billion tree-planting program--it took 30 years for the institution to move on this local African grass roots idea.
3. This is good news I think that some investment in tangible items is being done with U.N. funds, that allows people in local areas to slowly help themselves in the future instead of maintain dependence upon external supplies. It reminds me of the African 'green belt' program started Wangari Maathai back in 1977--perhaps because she has U.N. connections now as well? Maathai was the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace”. She is a combined humanitarian, feminist, and ecologically aware activist.
Background on her: she was the first woman in East and Central Africa to earn a doctorate degree. A political activist from Kenya, Maathai has been arrested several times and thrown in jail during her attempts to call forth attention to Kenya’s deforestation.
She began the Green Belt movement in 1977 and has planted over 20 million trees since then.
In 1986, she established the Pan African Green Belt Movement with others across Africa in order to help the other countries accomplish what she had in Kenya.
After being defeated in her bid for the Parliament in 1997, Maathai was elected to Parliament in 2002 with 98% of the vote.
Maathai also serves on very important boards, such the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board for Disarmament, The Jane Goodall Institute, and the Women and the Environment Development Organization.
The new president of Kenya named her the Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, and Wildlife in January 2003.
Maathai continues her work for the environmental and women’s causes and also served as national chairperson for the National Council of Women of Kenya.
She has written several books on the environment and women’s rights.
-------------------------------
World tree planting drive sets goal of 7 billion Tue May 13, 2008 11:51am EDT
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) - A campaign to plant trees worldwide set a goal on Tuesday of seven billion by late 2009, just over one for each person on the planet, to help protect the environment and slow climate change.
The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), an organizer of the tree planting drive begun in late 2006 with an initial goal of a billion by the end of 2007, said governments, companies and individuals had already pushed the total above 2 billion.
It set a target on Tuesday of an extra five billion plantings by the time a U.N. climate conference in Denmark starts on November 30 next year that is meant to agree a new long-term treaty to combat climate change beyond the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
"In 2006 we wondered if a billion tree target was too ambitious; it was not," said Achim Steiner, head of UNEP.
"The goal of two billion trees has also proven to be an underestimate. The goal of planting seven billion trees, equivalent to just over a tree per person alive on the planet, must therefore also be do-able," he said in a statement.
UNEP said that safeguarding and planting forests were among the most cost-effective ways to slow climate change, blamed by the U.N. Climate Panel on emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars.
Trees soak up carbon dioxide as they grow and release it when burnt or when they rot. Deforestation accounts for over 20 percent of the carbon dioxide humans generate.
The campaign registers pledges of plantings on the Internet but does not check that all seedlings or saplings are actually planted or survive.
"Regional and national governments organized the most massive plantings, with Ethiopia leading the count at 700 million, followed by Turkey (400 million), Mexico (250 million), and Kenya (100 million)," it said.
Millions of individuals have also taken part, including schoolchildren or religious groups. "It has given expression to the frustrations but also the hopes of millions of people around the world," Steiner said.
One U.N. official said that seven billion trees would, as they grow, soak up roughly the same amount of carbon dioxide emitted by Russia in a year. Russia is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the United States and China.
Among projects, mangroves were planted in Indonesia after the devastating 2004 tsunami to help protect coastline. And the Replant New Orleans initiative sponsored plantings of fruit trees to help communities recover after Hurricane Katrina.
2. Low Glass Ceilings Testings: "No testing" means "no evidence of risk" in U.S. Beef": Bush Administration sues to stop private meatpacker from testing for mad cow more than larger meatpackers want.
3. I wish I could say I was surprised. This is very reminiscent of the electric car story of California wanting more locally desired higher standards for risk assessment though the federal government and major car companies denying it to them.
This is a story I have been following for over a year. The U.S. federal government is attempting to say that a private meat supplier doesn't have the right to test its own cattle to a higher standard than the (corporate-profit lobby in the) federal government wants!
I wanted to post this to give 'we' Koreans some more information about what will soon (I assume) be pushed into Korean mouths. Here's an example of some meatpackers wanting to test all their animals, though the federal government doesn't want them to.
-------------------------
Bush To Stop Increased Testing For Mad Cow
U.S. wants to stop increased testing for mad cow
* Story Highlights * Bush administration wants court to stop companies from widely testing meat * Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for mad cow disease * Mad cow disease can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef * Three cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in the U.S. since 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to stop meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease, but a skeptical judge questioned whether the government has that authority.
Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for mad cow disease.
The government seeks to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy demand from overseas customers in Japan and elsewhere.
Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for the disease under Agriculture Department guidelines.
The agency argues that more widespread testing does not guarantee food safety and could result in a false positive that scares consumers. [i.e., inform consumers of the rational risk to themselves and thus of course stop profit.]
"They want to create false assurances," [sic?] Justice Department attorney Eric Flesig-Greene told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. [How is testing your own cattle creating 'false assurances.']
But Creekstone attorney Russell Frye contended the Agriculture Department's regulations covering the treatment of domestic animals contain no prohibition against an individual company testing for mad cow disease, since the test is conducted only after a cow is slaughtered.
He said the agency has no authority to prevent companies from using the test to reassure customers.
"This is the government telling the consumers, `You're not entitled to this information,"' Frye said.
Chief Judge David B. Sentelle seemed to agree with Creekstone's contention that the additional testing would not interfere with agency regulations governing the treatment of animals.
Don't Miss
* Japan: No need to ban U.S. beef
"All they want to do is create information," Sentelle said, noting that it's up to consumers to decide how to interpret the information.
Larger [risk causing] meatpackers have opposed Creekstone's push to allow wider testing out of fear that consumer pressure would force them to begin testing all animals too. [You bet it would, it's called being rational since the larger businesses are where more disease will be found.]
Increased testing would raise the price of meat by a few cents per pound.
Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef.
Three cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in the U.S. since 2003.
The district court's ruling last year in favor of Creekstone was supposed to take effect June 1, 2007, but the Agriculture Department's appeal has delayed the testing so far. [!]
2. 'Amazon' is called the lungs of Earth. But that we had seen is very shooked. Amazon is dying. Because many people use hole of Amazon. Specially advanced nation have to responsible. Brazil would prove that economic development and protect Amazon. I don't know that plan is succeed. But that plan must be succeed. And World people have to take part in that plan. So we make development join preservation.
Brazil faces the challenge of balancing use and protection of the Amazon The Brazilian minister in charge of managing the Amazon rainforest has said deforestation can only be halted if people are given economic chances.
Planning minister Roberto Mangabeira Unger told the BBC there was a middle way between preserving the Amazon as a sanctuary and "predatory" exploitation.
Meanwhile, a founder of Brazil's Green Party, Carlos Minc, has been named as the country's new environment minister.
He succeeds Marina Silva, who resigned after becoming isolated over policy.
Environmental groups reacted with dismay to the departure on Tuesday of Ms Silva, a staunch defender of the Amazon.
Brazil faces huge challenges in balancing protection of the Amazon with calls for the rainforest to be used for agriculture and energy production.
Senior officials say they are determined to stick with the Sustainable Amazon Plan - based on large-scale development of roads, waterways and dams.
Mr Mangabeira, in charge of the plan, told the BBC's Fergus Nicoll in Manaus that Brazil would prove that economic development and preservation could be achieved side-by-side.
"Our fundamental commitment to sustainable development in the Amazon remains unshaken and we are determined to go forward now and demonstrate to the world how preservation, defence and development can in fact be reconciled in the Amazon," he said.
He warned that without economic opportunities, the 25 million people living in the Amazon would turn to activities resulting in deforestation.
----- Page last updated at 15:34 GMT, Thursday, 15 May 2008 16:34 UK
3. Yay! At least one car corporation has determined to mass produce electric cars. I hope Nissan does not give up on the electric cars like GM did.
The people's concern over the environment is increasing which will lead to growing demand for the electric cars that are CO2-emission-free.
Started by Nissan, I hope many other car corporations jump into the electric-car market which may encourage them all to compete to make more efficient, cheaper and qualified electric cars. _________________________________
Nissan Motor Co. announced Tuesday it will mass produce electric cars within the next five years, according to NPR.
Zero-emission electric cars will be available in two years for government fleets in the U.S. and Japan, Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn told NPR. By 2012, the cars will be in mass production.
“Ten, 20 or 30 percent lower emissions cannot be the only answer,” Ghosn told NPR, explaining the goal should be 100 percent lower emissions.
He said the company hopes to be a global leader in zero-emission vehicles. __________
2. Earth Day: Balancing consumer passions and eco values
3. This is a good news about the companies's changed attitude and actions toward envrionment with Earth day. This article mostly contains how the companies act and make marketing strategies. We can see how much they consider their customers who are sensitive to environmental degradation.
Ecologically concious citizens want to consume the environmentally friendly products. Therefore, corporations became to reflect their customer's new values in their marketing. For example, Virginia America and Method(Soad company) are pledging 3$ for Earth day's project. Wal-mart is running ads promoting envrionmentally friendly products.
All these efforts look very impressing in that many corporations causing environmental degradation changed their behavior and became concious to environment more. However, some people adviced that the efforts for environment should be planned in long term perspective. The companies's efforts have a danger to finish just as a press hit. Therefore, we, consumers, should keep our eyes on the companies's value and behaviors on environment.
---------------------
The debate is dividing environmentalists on Earth Day 2008.
The international day of eco-activism was born in a different era -- literally and metaphorically.
The first Earth Day was in 1970 and it still embodies all the qualities of the environmental movement at that time: angry, impassioned and positive. If it had a soundtrack it would have been by Jefferson Airplane and if it wore shoes they would be Birkenstocks.
But the world has changed, and while Earth Day still offers the same powerful mix of education and activism, the way people engage with the message has changed.
Marking the day through marketing
This year, as well as a whole host of official workshops and other activities, companies are offering ecologically conscious citizens the chance to shop their way to a better environment; an offer some environmentalists claim is contradictory to the fundamental tenets of sustainability.
Major retailers including Virgin, Banana Republic and Dell are all marketing special Earth Day offers to their customers, all promoting the message that we can consume with a clear -- or clearer - conscience.
Earth Day claim that their "international network reaches over 17,000 organizations in 174 countries, while the domestic program engages 5,000 groups and over 25,000 educators coordinating millions of community development and environmental protection activities throughout the year."
As more and more people become interested in marking Earth Day, it seems more and more corporations want to reflect their customer's new values in their marketing.
Plus, in an increasingly materialistic world many people seem to equate "participation" with "shopping" and the mall seems to have replaced the protest march in many people's minds -- and big business is there to meet them.
So, at Banana Republic one percent of sales from April 22-April 27 benefit the Trust for Public Land.
Virgin America and Method (that company that creates the hand soap provided on all Virgin America flights) are pledging $3 for every person flying with them on Earth Day for environmental restoration projects in California.
At Macy's customers can get 10-20 percent of most merchandise in return for making a $5 donation to the National Park Foundation.
Verizon Wireless is offering customers five tips on how they can celebrate and make the world a better place.
Wal-Mart is running a series of ads promoting their "Budget-friendly prices. Earth-friendly products."
Newsweek readers can turn the cover of the April 14 issue into an envelope they can use to send old plastic bags to Target and in return receive a reusable tote bag.
Most bizarrely, perhaps, Dell is offering to plant a tree for customers in MMRPG Second Life ("Each tree carries with it a link back to our Plant a Tree for Me page on Dell.com, where we hope residents will take the opportunity to participate and offset a bit of their carbon emissions in the real world," say Dell).
The perils of trying to buy a better world
The idea that we can buy our way out of environmental problems is ridiculous for British environmental campaigner George Monbiot, who has said green consumerism is becoming "a pox on the planet."
He blames the media's obsession with wealth and beauty for confusing the issue: "There is an inherent conflict between the aspirational lifestyle journalism which makes readers feel better about themselves and sells country kitchens and the central demand of environmentalism: that we should consume less."
"Uncomfortable as this is for both the media and its advertisers, giving things up is an essential component of going green... Ethical shopping is in danger of becoming another signifier of social status."
Others argue that companies have a definite role to play in the greening of our 21st century consumer society, but that they need to prove their interests are genuine.
"While it's important that major companies pay heed to events like Earth Day, it's equally important that any initiatives they are involved with are genuinely sustainable and not just about a quick press hit," says Clare Harris, editor of New Consumer magazine.
"We know many retailers want to be more sustainable in terms of their sourcing and social policy, but they have a long way to go to prove that they will remain committed over the long-term."
Using consumer power to force companies to change their ways is nothing new: boycotts and positive buying -- the favoring of ethical goods -- has been going on for some years.
It began with a boycott of South African goods co-ordinated by anti-apartheid groups in the 1980's, and was fine tuned by organizations like Fair Trade and the Body Shop in the 1990's.
This Earth Day the message seems to be: buy better, not more - and make sure those you shop with are green all the way to the core.
1. Keonhwa Sung 2. Why are Honeybees Disappearing? 3. Whenever I think about honeybees, I have just thought about getting stung by bees or flying around flowers. But for environment they may help food supply chain. Also, interesting fact in this article is the fact: Radiation May Push Honeybees Off Course Bee populations may also be vulnerable to other factors, such as the recent increase in atmospheric electromagnetic radiation as a result of growing numbers of cell phones and wireless communication towers. The increased radiation given off by such devices may interfere with bees’ ability to navigate. A small study at Germany’s Landau University found that bees would not return to their hives when mobile phones were placed nearby. Further research is currently underway in the U.S. to determine the extent of such radiation-related phenomena on bees and other insect populations. ---------------------------- Loss of honeybees could have devastating effect on agriculture and food supply Dear EarthTalk: What is causing the dramatic decline in honeybee populations in the U.S. and elsewhere in recent years, and what is being done about it? -- James Harris, Akron, Ohio Kids everywhere may revel in the fact that bees are no longer stinging them as frequently on playgrounds and in backyards, but the decline in honeybee populations in the U.S. and elsewhere signals a major environmental imbalance that could have far-reaching implications for our agricultural food supply. The Importance of Honeybees Brought here from Europe in the 1600s, honeybees have become widespread across North America and are bred commercially for their abilities to produce honey and pollinate crops—90 different farm-grown foods, including many fruits and nuts, depend on honeybees. But in recent years honeybee populations across the continent have plummeted by as much as 70 percent, and biologists are still scratching their heads as to why and what to do about the problem which they have termed “colony collapse disorder” (CCD). Chemicals May Be Killing the Honeybees Many believe that our increasing use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, which honeybees ingest during their daily pollination rounds, are largely to blame. Commercial beehives are also subjected to direct chemical fumigation at regular intervals to ward off destructive mites. Another leading suspect is genetically modified crops, which may generate pollen with compromised nutritional value. It may be that the build-up of both synthetic chemicals and genetically modified crop pollen has reached a “tipping point,” stressing bee populations to the point of collapse. Lending credence to this theory is that organic bee colonies, where chemicals and genetically modified crops are avoided, are not experiencing the same kind of catastrophic collapses, according to the non-profit Organic Consumers Association. Radiation May Push Honeybees Off Course Bee populations may also be vulnerable to other factors, such as the recent increase in atmospheric electromagnetic radiation as a result of growing numbers of cell phones and wireless communication towers. The increased radiation given off by such devices may interfere with bees’ ability to navigate. A small study at Germany’s Landau University found that bees would not return to their hives when mobile phones were placed nearby. Further research is currently underway in the U.S. to determine the extent of such radiation-related phenomena on bees and other insect populations. Global Warming May Be Partly to Blame for Honeybee Deaths Biologists also wonder if global warming may be exaggerating the growth rates of pathogens such as the mites, viruses and fungi that are known to take their toll on bee colonies. The unusual hot-and-cold winter weather fluctuations in recent years, also blamed on global warming, may also be wreaking havoc on bee populations accustomed to more consistent seasonal weather patterns. Scientists Still Searching for Cause of Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder A recent gathering of leading bee biologists yielded no consensus, but most agree that a combination of factors is likely to blame. “We’re going to see a lot of money poured into this problem,” says University of Maryland entomologist Galen Dively, one of the nation’s leading bee researchers. He reports that the federal government plans an allocation of $80 million to fund research in connection with CCD. “What we’re looking for,” Dively says, “is some commonality which can lead us to a cause.” ------------------------- http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/honeybees.htm?p=1
3. In Korea, we have to pay extra money (50won) to buy plastic bags at supermarkets. It seems like that customers are to blame for environmental situation right now. However, if supermarkets could offer eco-friendly materials to pack, customers do not have to buy plastic bags and to pollute the environment. I think this article shows the other side of environmental situaton that we have been unaware of.
-----------------------------------
Plans to ban or charge for single-use plastic bags are a diversion from the real environmental issues, one of the government's own advisers has said.
Waste and recycling expert Professor Chris Coggins said such a government policy allowed the supermarkets to pass on responsibility to customers.
He said supermarkets could be helping to influence packaging rather than shifting the problem on to consumers.
The government said the public wanted to see action to curb use of the bags.
Visible litter
"Supermarkets have a much bigger role to play in influencing the packaging they use," said Professor Chris Coggins, who was appointed research managing agent for the Department of Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) waste research programme in 2005.
"They [supermarkets] have power in terms of what they buy and how it's packed. The problem is, by focusing on the consumer end, they are to some extent diverting attention from what they should be doing." In a BBC interview, Prof Coggins, who also works on the sustainable urban environment (waste) programme, said: "Plastic bags are a very visible form of litter but in reality they are a very small proportion of waste and oil use.
"So in overall resource terms, it's a visual rather than mainstream issue."
Environment minister Joan Ruddock admitted single use bags were only a small part of the waste stream.
But she added: "We know that the public is on our side. They want action. It's very symbolic of our throw-away society and so we do need to do something quite dramatically to curb their use."
Trivial issue
British retailers hand out an estimated 13 billion free plastic bags every year, which take about 1,000 years to decay.
The government has set a voluntary target of cutting plastic bag usage by a quarter every year.
It has also proposed stricter measures on retailers as part of the proposed climate change bill, should that target not be met. The retail sector comprises about 7% of the total UK building energy consumption, emitting over 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, according to the Carbon Trust.
But the proposed new legislation has not been welcomed by retailers.
Jane Milne, from the British Retail Consortium, which represents Britain's supermarkets, said: "There are a lot of important provisions in the climate change bill which we do support but we think this is a rather trivial issue to add onto it.
"It's not just a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it's a steamroller to crack a walnut. It really is not the best use of our resources in terms of all the issues that we need to be addressing."
Lack of uniformity
Since 6 May, one of Britain's largest retailers, Marks & Spencer, has been charging its customers 5p for each disposable plastic bag as part of its corporate environmental policy.
The move follows a trial at 50 stores in Northern Ireland and the south-west of England, which saw demand for polythene bags fall by more than 70%.
If that trend is copied throughout the UK, M&S said it could reduce the number of bags used by 280 million each year.
Other supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsbury's have their own policies for cutting plastic bag use among customers.
Discount retailers such as Aldi and Lidl have been charging for bags for a number of years.
This array of strategies to combat single-use plastic bags by supermarkets has also been criticised by Prof Coggins as confusing for shoppers looking for uniformity nationwide.
In 2002, the Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to charge for plastic bags - a policy which cut usage by 90% almost overnight.
Although the scheme has been beneficial for the environment, the measure was initially introduced to reduce litter.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
8 comments:
1. Mark Whitaker
2. U.N.'s 7 billion tree-planting program--it took 30 years for the institution to move on this local African grass roots idea.
3. This is good news I think that some investment in tangible items is being done with U.N. funds, that allows people in local areas to slowly help themselves in the future instead of maintain dependence upon external supplies. It reminds me of the African 'green belt' program started Wangari Maathai back in 1977--perhaps because she has U.N. connections now as well? Maathai was the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace”. She is a combined humanitarian, feminist, and ecologically aware activist.
Background on her: she was the first woman in East and Central Africa to earn a doctorate degree. A political activist from Kenya, Maathai has been arrested several times and thrown in jail during her attempts to call forth attention to Kenya’s deforestation.
She began the Green Belt movement in 1977 and has planted over 20 million trees since then.
In 1986, she established the Pan African Green Belt Movement with others across Africa in order to help the other countries accomplish what she had in Kenya.
After being defeated in her bid for the Parliament in 1997, Maathai was elected to Parliament in 2002 with 98% of the vote.
Maathai also serves on very important boards, such the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board for Disarmament, The Jane Goodall Institute, and the Women and the Environment Development Organization.
The new president of Kenya named her the Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources, and Wildlife in January 2003.
Maathai continues her work for the environmental and women’s causes and also served as national chairperson for the National Council of Women of Kenya.
She has written several books on the environment and women’s rights.
-------------------------------
World tree planting drive sets goal of 7 billion
Tue May 13, 2008 11:51am EDT
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) - A campaign to plant trees worldwide set a goal on Tuesday of seven billion by late 2009, just over one for each person on the planet, to help protect the environment and slow climate change.
The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), an organizer of the tree planting drive begun in late 2006 with an initial goal of a billion by the end of 2007, said governments, companies and individuals had already pushed the total above 2 billion.
It set a target on Tuesday of an extra five billion plantings by the time a U.N. climate conference in Denmark starts on November 30 next year that is meant to agree a new long-term treaty to combat climate change beyond the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
"In 2006 we wondered if a billion tree target was too ambitious; it was not," said Achim Steiner, head of UNEP.
"The goal of two billion trees has also proven to be an underestimate. The goal of planting seven billion trees, equivalent to just over a tree per person alive on the planet, must therefore also be do-able," he said in a statement.
UNEP said that safeguarding and planting forests were among the most cost-effective ways to slow climate change, blamed by the U.N. Climate Panel on emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars.
Trees soak up carbon dioxide as they grow and release it when burnt or when they rot. Deforestation accounts for over 20 percent of the carbon dioxide humans generate.
The campaign registers pledges of plantings on the Internet but does not check that all seedlings or saplings are actually planted or survive.
"Regional and national governments organized the most massive plantings, with Ethiopia leading the count at 700 million, followed by Turkey (400 million), Mexico (250 million), and Kenya (100 million)," it said.
Millions of individuals have also taken part, including schoolchildren or religious groups. "It has given expression to the frustrations but also the hopes of millions of people around the world," Steiner said.
One U.N. official said that seven billion trees would, as they grow, soak up roughly the same amount of carbon dioxide emitted by Russia in a year. Russia is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the United States and China.
Among projects, mangroves were planted in Indonesia after the devastating 2004 tsunami to help protect coastline. And the Replant New Orleans initiative sponsored plantings of fruit trees to help communities recover after Hurricane Katrina.
---
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1372707820080513?sp=true
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Low Glass Ceilings Testings: "No testing" means "no evidence of risk" in U.S. Beef": Bush Administration sues to stop private meatpacker from testing for mad cow more than larger meatpackers want.
3. I wish I could say I was surprised. This is very reminiscent of the electric car story of California wanting more locally desired higher standards for risk assessment though the federal government and major car companies denying it to them.
This is a story I have been following for over a year. The U.S. federal government is attempting to say that a private meat supplier doesn't have the right to test its own cattle to a higher standard than the (corporate-profit lobby in the) federal government wants!
I wanted to post this to give 'we' Koreans some more information about what will soon (I assume) be pushed into Korean mouths. Here's an example of some meatpackers wanting to test all their animals, though the federal government doesn't want them to.
-------------------------
Bush To Stop Increased Testing For Mad Cow
U.S. wants to stop increased testing for mad cow
* Story Highlights
* Bush administration wants court to stop companies from widely testing meat
* Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for mad cow disease
* Mad cow disease can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef
* Three cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in the U.S. since 2003
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration on Friday urged a federal appeals court to stop meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease, but a skeptical judge questioned whether the government has that authority.
Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for mad cow disease.
The government seeks to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy demand from overseas customers in Japan and elsewhere.
Less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows are currently tested for the disease under Agriculture Department guidelines.
The agency argues that more widespread testing does not guarantee food safety and could result in a false positive that scares consumers. [i.e., inform consumers of the rational risk to themselves and thus of course stop profit.]
"They want to create false assurances," [sic?] Justice Department attorney Eric Flesig-Greene told a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. [How is testing your own cattle creating 'false assurances.']
But Creekstone attorney Russell Frye contended the Agriculture Department's regulations covering the treatment of domestic animals contain no prohibition against an individual company testing for mad cow disease, since the test is conducted only after a cow is slaughtered.
He said the agency has no authority to prevent companies from using the test to reassure customers.
"This is the government telling the consumers, `You're not entitled to this information,"' Frye said.
Chief Judge David B. Sentelle seemed to agree with Creekstone's contention that the additional testing would not interfere with agency regulations governing the treatment of animals.
Don't Miss
* Japan: No need to ban U.S. beef
"All they want to do is create information," Sentelle said, noting that it's up to consumers to decide how to interpret the information.
Larger [risk causing] meatpackers have opposed Creekstone's push to allow wider testing out of fear that consumer pressure would force them to begin testing all animals too. [You bet it would, it's called being rational since the larger businesses are where more disease will be found.]
Increased testing would raise the price of meat by a few cents per pound.
Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef.
Three cases of mad cow disease have been discovered in the U.S. since 2003.
The district court's ruling last year in favor of Creekstone was supposed to take effect June 1, 2007, but the Agriculture Department's appeal has delayed the testing so far. [!]
---
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/09/mad.cow.testing.ap/index.html
1.Hea Joung Lee
2. 'Amazon' is called the lungs of Earth. But that we had seen is very shooked.
Amazon is dying. Because many people use hole of Amazon. Specially advanced nation have to responsible. Brazil would prove that economic development and protect Amazon. I don't know that plan is succeed. But that plan must be succeed. And World people have to take part in that plan. So we make development join preservation.
--------------------
3.Amazon 'needs economic chances'
Brazil faces the challenge of balancing use and protection of the Amazon
The Brazilian minister in charge of managing the Amazon rainforest has said deforestation can only be halted if people are given economic chances.
Planning minister Roberto Mangabeira Unger told the BBC there was a middle way between preserving the Amazon as a sanctuary and "predatory" exploitation.
Meanwhile, a founder of Brazil's Green Party, Carlos Minc, has been named as the country's new environment minister.
He succeeds Marina Silva, who resigned after becoming isolated over policy.
Environmental groups reacted with dismay to the departure on Tuesday of Ms Silva, a staunch defender of the Amazon.
Brazil faces huge challenges in balancing protection of the Amazon with calls for the rainforest to be used for agriculture and energy production.
Senior officials say they are determined to stick with the Sustainable Amazon Plan - based on large-scale development of roads, waterways and dams.
Mr Mangabeira, in charge of the plan, told the BBC's Fergus Nicoll in Manaus that Brazil would prove that economic development and preservation could be achieved side-by-side.
"Our fundamental commitment to sustainable development in the Amazon remains unshaken and we are determined to go forward now and demonstrate to the world how preservation, defence and development can in fact be reconciled in the Amazon," he said.
He warned that without economic opportunities, the 25 million people living in the Amazon would turn to activities resulting in deforestation.
-----
Page last updated at 15:34 GMT, Thursday, 15 May 2008 16:34 UK
1. SONG Jee-Hyun
2. Nissan to build Electric Cars
3. Yay! At least one car corporation has determined to mass produce electric cars. I hope Nissan does not give up on the electric cars like GM did.
The people's concern over the environment is increasing which will lead to growing demand for the electric cars that are CO2-emission-free.
Started by Nissan, I hope many other car corporations jump into the electric-car market which may encourage them all to compete to make more efficient, cheaper and qualified electric cars.
_________________________________
Nissan Motor Co. announced Tuesday it will mass produce electric cars within the next five years, according to NPR.
Zero-emission electric cars will be available in two years for government fleets in the U.S. and Japan, Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn told NPR. By 2012, the cars will be in mass production.
“Ten, 20 or 30 percent lower emissions cannot be the only answer,” Ghosn told NPR, explaining the goal should be 100 percent lower emissions.
He said the company hopes to be a global leader in zero-emission vehicles.
__________
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/36421
1. Gowoon JUNG
2. Earth Day: Balancing consumer passions and eco values
3. This is a good news about the companies's changed attitude and actions toward envrionment with Earth day. This article mostly contains how the companies act and make marketing strategies. We can see how much they consider their customers who are sensitive to environmental degradation.
Ecologically concious citizens want to consume the environmentally friendly products. Therefore, corporations became to reflect their customer's new values in their marketing. For example, Virginia America and Method(Soad company) are pledging 3$ for Earth day's project. Wal-mart is running ads promoting envrionmentally friendly products.
All these efforts look very impressing in that many corporations causing environmental degradation changed their behavior and became concious to environment more. However, some people adviced that the efforts for environment should be planned in long term perspective. The companies's efforts have a danger to finish just as a press hit.
Therefore, we, consumers, should keep our eyes on the companies's value and behaviors on environment.
---------------------
The debate is dividing environmentalists on Earth Day 2008.
The international day of eco-activism was born in a different era -- literally and metaphorically.
The first Earth Day was in 1970 and it still embodies all the qualities of the environmental movement at that time: angry, impassioned and positive. If it had a soundtrack it would have been by Jefferson Airplane and if it wore shoes they would be Birkenstocks.
But the world has changed, and while Earth Day still offers the same powerful mix of education and activism, the way people engage with the message has changed.
Marking the day through marketing
This year, as well as a whole host of official workshops and other activities, companies are offering ecologically conscious citizens the chance to shop their way to a better environment; an offer some environmentalists claim is contradictory to the fundamental tenets of sustainability.
Major retailers including Virgin, Banana Republic and Dell are all marketing special Earth Day offers to their customers, all promoting the message that we can consume with a clear -- or clearer - conscience.
Earth Day claim that their "international network reaches over 17,000 organizations in 174 countries, while the domestic program engages 5,000 groups and over 25,000 educators coordinating millions of community development and environmental protection activities throughout the year."
As more and more people become interested in marking Earth Day, it seems more and more corporations want to reflect their customer's new values in their marketing.
Plus, in an increasingly materialistic world many people seem to equate "participation" with "shopping" and the mall seems to have replaced the protest march in many people's minds -- and big business is there to meet them.
So, at Banana Republic one percent of sales from April 22-April 27 benefit the Trust for Public Land.
Virgin America and Method (that company that creates the hand soap provided on all Virgin America flights) are pledging $3 for every person flying with them on Earth Day for environmental restoration projects in California.
At Macy's customers can get 10-20 percent of most merchandise in return for making a $5 donation to the National Park Foundation.
Verizon Wireless is offering customers five tips on how they can celebrate and make the world a better place.
Wal-Mart is running a series of ads promoting their "Budget-friendly prices. Earth-friendly products."
Newsweek readers can turn the cover of the April 14 issue into an envelope they can use to send old plastic bags to Target and in return receive a reusable tote bag.
Most bizarrely, perhaps, Dell is offering to plant a tree for customers in MMRPG Second Life ("Each tree carries with it a link back to our Plant a Tree for Me page on Dell.com, where we hope residents will take the opportunity to participate and offset a bit of their carbon emissions in the real world," say Dell).
The perils of trying to buy a better world
The idea that we can buy our way out of environmental problems is ridiculous for British environmental campaigner George Monbiot, who has said green consumerism is becoming "a pox on the planet."
He blames the media's obsession with wealth and beauty for confusing the issue: "There is an inherent conflict between the aspirational lifestyle journalism which makes readers feel better about themselves and sells country kitchens and the central demand of environmentalism: that we should consume less."
"Uncomfortable as this is for both the media and its advertisers, giving things up is an essential component of going green... Ethical shopping is in danger of becoming another signifier of social status."
Others argue that companies have a definite role to play in the greening of our 21st century consumer society, but that they need to prove their interests are genuine.
"While it's important that major companies pay heed to events like Earth Day, it's equally important that any initiatives they are involved with are genuinely sustainable and not just about a quick press hit," says Clare Harris, editor of New Consumer magazine.
"We know many retailers want to be more sustainable in terms of their sourcing and social policy, but they have a long way to go to prove that they will remain committed over the long-term."
Using consumer power to force companies to change their ways is nothing new: boycotts and positive buying -- the favoring of ethical goods -- has been going on for some years.
It began with a boycott of South African goods co-ordinated by anti-apartheid groups in the 1980's, and was fine tuned by organizations like Fair Trade and the Body Shop in the 1990's.
This Earth Day the message seems to be: buy better, not more - and make sure those you shop with are green all the way to the core.
------------------------
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/04/21/es.earthday/index.html
1. Keonhwa Sung
2. Why are Honeybees Disappearing?
3. Whenever I think about honeybees, I have just thought about getting stung by bees or flying around flowers. But for environment they may help food supply chain. Also, interesting fact in this article is the fact:
Radiation May Push Honeybees Off Course
Bee populations may also be vulnerable to other factors, such as the recent increase in atmospheric electromagnetic radiation as a result of growing numbers of cell phones and wireless communication towers. The increased radiation given off by such devices may interfere with bees’ ability to navigate. A small study at Germany’s Landau University found that bees would not return to their hives when mobile phones were placed nearby. Further research is currently underway in the U.S. to determine the extent of such radiation-related phenomena on bees and other insect populations.
----------------------------
Loss of honeybees could have devastating effect on agriculture and food supply
Dear EarthTalk: What is causing the dramatic decline in honeybee populations in the U.S. and elsewhere in recent years, and what is being done about it?
-- James Harris, Akron, Ohio
Kids everywhere may revel in the fact that bees are no longer stinging them as frequently on playgrounds and in backyards, but the decline in honeybee populations in the U.S. and elsewhere signals a major environmental imbalance that could have far-reaching implications for our agricultural food supply.
The Importance of Honeybees
Brought here from Europe in the 1600s, honeybees have become widespread across North America and are bred commercially for their abilities to produce honey and pollinate crops—90 different farm-grown foods, including many fruits and nuts, depend on honeybees. But in recent years honeybee populations across the continent have plummeted by as much as 70 percent, and biologists are still scratching their heads as to why and what to do about the problem which they have termed “colony collapse disorder” (CCD).
Chemicals May Be Killing the Honeybees
Many believe that our increasing use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, which honeybees ingest during their daily pollination rounds, are largely to blame. Commercial beehives are also subjected to direct chemical fumigation at regular intervals to ward off destructive mites. Another leading suspect is genetically modified crops, which may generate pollen with compromised nutritional value.
It may be that the build-up of both synthetic chemicals and genetically modified crop pollen has reached a “tipping point,” stressing bee populations to the point of collapse. Lending credence to this theory is that organic bee colonies, where chemicals and genetically modified crops are avoided, are not experiencing the same kind of catastrophic collapses, according to the non-profit Organic Consumers Association.
Radiation May Push Honeybees Off Course
Bee populations may also be vulnerable to other factors, such as the recent increase in atmospheric electromagnetic radiation as a result of growing numbers of cell phones and wireless communication towers. The increased radiation given off by such devices may interfere with bees’ ability to navigate. A small study at Germany’s Landau University found that bees would not return to their hives when mobile phones were placed nearby. Further research is currently underway in the U.S. to determine the extent of such radiation-related phenomena on bees and other insect populations.
Global Warming May Be Partly to Blame for Honeybee Deaths
Biologists also wonder if global warming may be exaggerating the growth rates of pathogens such as the mites, viruses and fungi that are known to take their toll on bee colonies. The unusual hot-and-cold winter weather fluctuations in recent years, also blamed on global warming, may also be wreaking havoc on bee populations accustomed to more consistent seasonal weather patterns.
Scientists Still Searching for Cause of Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder
A recent gathering of leading bee biologists yielded no consensus, but most agree that a combination of factors is likely to blame. “We’re going to see a lot of money poured into this problem,” says University of Maryland entomologist Galen Dively, one of the nation’s leading bee researchers. He reports that the federal government plans an allocation of $80 million to fund research in connection with CCD. “What we’re looking for,” Dively says, “is some commonality which can lead us to a cause.”
-------------------------
http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/honeybees.htm?p=1
1. Nuri Na
2. Plastic bag policy 'a diversion'
3. In Korea, we have to pay extra money (50won) to buy plastic bags at supermarkets. It seems like that customers are to blame for environmental situation right now. However, if supermarkets could offer eco-friendly materials to pack, customers do not have to buy plastic bags and to pollute the environment. I think this article shows the other side of environmental situaton that we have been unaware of.
-----------------------------------
Plans to ban or charge for single-use plastic bags are a diversion from the real environmental issues, one of the government's own advisers has said.
Waste and recycling expert Professor Chris Coggins said such a government policy allowed the supermarkets to pass on responsibility to customers.
He said supermarkets could be helping to influence packaging rather than shifting the problem on to consumers.
The government said the public wanted to see action to curb use of the bags.
Visible litter
"Supermarkets have a much bigger role to play in influencing the packaging they use," said Professor Chris Coggins, who was appointed research managing agent for the Department of Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) waste research programme in 2005.
"They [supermarkets] have power in terms of what they buy and how it's packed. The problem is, by focusing on the consumer end, they are to some extent diverting attention from what they should be doing."
In a BBC interview, Prof Coggins, who also works on the sustainable urban environment (waste) programme, said: "Plastic bags are a very visible form of litter but in reality they are a very small proportion of waste and oil use.
"So in overall resource terms, it's a visual rather than mainstream issue."
Environment minister Joan Ruddock admitted single use bags were only a small part of the waste stream.
But she added: "We know that the public is on our side. They want action. It's very symbolic of our throw-away society and so we do need to do something quite dramatically to curb their use."
Trivial issue
British retailers hand out an estimated 13 billion free plastic bags every year, which take about 1,000 years to decay.
The government has set a voluntary target of cutting plastic bag usage by a quarter every year.
It has also proposed stricter measures on retailers as part of the proposed climate change bill, should that target not be met.
The retail sector comprises about 7% of the total UK building energy consumption, emitting over 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, according to the Carbon Trust.
But the proposed new legislation has not been welcomed by retailers.
Jane Milne, from the British Retail Consortium, which represents Britain's supermarkets, said: "There are a lot of important provisions in the climate change bill which we do support but we think this is a rather trivial issue to add onto it.
"It's not just a sledgehammer to crack a nut, it's a steamroller to crack a walnut. It really is not the best use of our resources in terms of all the issues that we need to be addressing."
Lack of uniformity
Since 6 May, one of Britain's largest retailers, Marks & Spencer, has been charging its customers 5p for each disposable plastic bag as part of its corporate environmental policy.
The move follows a trial at 50 stores in Northern Ireland and the south-west of England, which saw demand for polythene bags fall by more than 70%.
If that trend is copied throughout the UK, M&S said it could reduce the number of bags used by 280 million each year.
Other supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsbury's have their own policies for cutting plastic bag use among customers.
Discount retailers such as Aldi and Lidl have been charging for bags for a number of years.
This array of strategies to combat single-use plastic bags by supermarkets has also been criticised by Prof Coggins as confusing for shoppers looking for uniformity nationwide.
In 2002, the Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to charge for plastic bags - a policy which cut usage by 90% almost overnight.
Although the scheme has been beneficial for the environment, the measure was initially introduced to reduce litter.
-----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7405861.stm
Post a Comment