31
January
2008
NAIROBI, Kenya, January 29, 2008 (ENS) - A prime minister, a former prime minister, and a prince are among seven Champions of the Earth selected for recognition as outstanding environmental achievers by the UN Environment Programme. The work of this year’s champions - one from each region of the world - is all related to global warming in some way.
Prime Minister Helen Clark is being honored with a UNEP Special Prize in addition to the Champion of the Earth recognition. “By setting a carbon neutral goal for New Zealand, Prime Minister Clark has put her country at the forefront of today’s environmental challenges,” UNEP said, announcing the awards on Monday.
Three major policy initiatives launched by Clark attracted UNEP’s favorable attention - the Emissions Trading Scheme; the Energy Strategy; and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy.
Clark said the Champion of the Earth Award is an honor. “For New Zealand to become a truly sustainable nation, it requires government, business, and community to each take special responsibilities and pursue a common interest,” she said.
“It is clearly the responsibility of government to give leadership. It reflects our belief that pursuing sustainability is not only the right thing to do, but is also a strategic investment in New Zealand’s overall future, said Clark. “Further sustainability initiatives will be unveiled by the government this year.”
So, if New Zealand can do it, what is standing in the way of the rest of the world, following her lead?
Posted: Climate Change
31
January
2008
LESS than 3 per cent of major Australian firms have implemented a climate change plan even though the Federal Government intends to bring in new carbon emission laws by 2010.
It is amazing that the ceo’s and shareholders of these companies still have their heads in the ground and think that if they stay there, this “climate change thing” will go away.
When they wake up in the morning, what do they see?
Posted: Climate Change
30
January
2008
If we as a world community don’t get down to investigating, studying and being transparent in our discoveries, then to put it mildly, we will probably miss the boat.
We need world cooperation and an understanding that power does not exist with any one nation. “We are truly all one” in this endeavour to save our world as we know it.
We need to be tolerant, compassionate and accepting of each other.We need to let the power struggle melt with the ice sheets and start to rebuild our world.
We need to live an organic lifestyle and support ethical practices.
Is it time for us to dream and act on those dreams, or are we just going to carry on doing the same old same old ?
We have examples of many companies that are cause driven and still make a profit, and help our environment be sustainable. The only thing stopping the rest of the corporate world is the insatiable hunger for more money and power at the cost of everyone and everything else.
What will those corporations and ceo’s do with all that money and power when there is no earth left?
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
29
January
2008
Well, what news that is for me. This morning on the tele I heard that Prince Phillip has an organic business. Wow! that is really great to hear. I hope that the millions of people who look to the royal household as an example, will take that on board……Prince Phillip living an organic lifestyle is probably the best thing that the palace can pass onto the people of the commonwealth and the world.
Good on yer mate!
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
28
January
2008
There are several very good reasons for us to eat organically grown foods as well as to use organics in our products.(described in laymen terms- simple logic)
The energy, both nutritionally and spiritually, of organic food is far greater than food which has been exposed to toxic chemicals.
The earth itself is revitalized and not destroyed by the chemicals.
The toxic chemicals are not spread by the wind and rain, running off into our waters, rivers, streams and oceans, in turn contaminating the fish and creatures of the seas.
Without the toxic chemicals used in farming we would be less likely to suffer from cancer and many other horrible diseases, caused by their use.
We would have less fossil fuels being put into the air. The toxic fertilizers are created with tons of fossil fuels, and so release tons of it into the air.
Probably the single main source of greenhouse gases in current food production methods are from fertilisers.
The production of fertiliser is an energy intensive process which uses fossil fuels as a raw material (mostly methane). This results in the emission of large quantities of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.
When fertiliser is applied to the land it emits more nitrous oxide.
Fertilisers also acidify the soil, requiring the regular application of lime by farmers, the production of which in turn produces more carbon dioxide.
Fertilisers also have the effect of suppressing the soil micro-organisms that break down methane in the atmosphere. By reducing the soil oxidation rates, fertilisers cause there to be more methane in the atmosphere than there would otherwise be.
So, by supporting organic agriculture, foods grown without the use of pesticides and loads of toxic chemicals, we will be supporting our bodies, our environment, our ethical farmers and most of all our planet earth and all its inhabitants. What more could we want, than a life that supports and enriches our entire community?
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
27
January
2008
While some leaders are not afraid of committing to deal with climate change, Bush is still holding the world to ransom, promising lots and delivering nothing. Bush has gotten the The major economies to agree to plan to meet again at the end of January 2009, to discuss a work program that contributes to the Bali Roadmap.
That is 1 year away, how much more time does he want to waste? He is obviously not prepared to do anything constructive while in office, and is leaving it to the next administration to see the light…after all, “flatworld” thinkers just don’t get it, or do they?
Posted: Climate Change
26
January
2008
Well lets hope so! Lets hope this will be an opportunity to have the world drop all the greed, power struggles and fighting, and join together in a peaceful effort. Let the armed forces bury their arms and take on a new name….The Peace Brigade”.
After all, think of what the word “force”conveys to most people - “The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain”.
You know how we always get sick or have an accident and hurt ourselves, when we are not paying attention and this illness or accident helps us to take stock of where we are and do something positive about changing?
Well perhaps if we can look at this situation, Global warming, Climate change, as that state of illness or accident that brings us to see the light, and change our ways, our many ways.
The way we eat, drink, use energy, accumulate, fight, grab, see our neighbors, other peoples religions and belief systems, prejudices, hates and fears.
What if we could change all that by coming together to deal with climate change in a way that would raise the barr? In ways that would show us who and what we are really capable of. In ways that will certainly bring us to respect our selves, for being beautiful people and not prejudicial, greedy and fearful ignorant humans.
What if we could let this situation we have brought upon ourselves be an opportunity to shine ? what if…..?
Posted: Climate Change
25
January
2008
the following information is from the website of www.lohas.com
Source: Tiller, LLC
Published: Thursday, January 24, 2008
# 71% of investors classify environmental technology companies a “buy”(1)
# When asked to rate various sectors, investors identified the environment as the most desirable of those surveyed(2)
# 17% of investors have already bought stocks or mutual funds to capitalize on environmental trends
# Nearly half say they will invest in the environment in ‘08
Social Responsibility and Investment Potential Seen As Compatible, Increasingly Linked
Where Do Investors See the Most Opportunity?
Solar Energy, Wind Power, Hybrid Vehicles and Water Purification
Green a Primary Color: Two out of Three Investors Say
Presidential Candidates’ Environmental Records Will Impact Their Vote
Investors view the environment as a major long-term investing opportunity, according to the results of a groundbreaking survey of investors released here today by Allianz Global Investors, a leading global investment firm.
Of the 1,003 investors surveyed, nearly half (49%) said that over the next 12 months they were likely to invest in a company or mutual fund looking to provide solutions for environmental problems; 17% reported having already made such an investment.
“The environment is a fertile investment area at an early stage of growth,” said Bozena Jankowska, lead portfolio manager of the Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund, a continuously offered closed-end interval fund, and head of the RCM Sustainability Research Team. “It is one of the few sectors where the public and politicians are in alignment and inclined to act. As popular sentiment grows and legislation continues to tighten, technological innovation will accelerate, laying the groundwork for great investment opportunities.”
The poll of 1,003 adults examined investors’ understanding of and attitudes toward the environment, absolutely and with specific regard to investing. The poll was conducted via the Internet between December 14 and December 20, 2007 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, a division of GfK Custom Research North America. Participants had to be age 25 or older and have primary or shared responsibility for investment decisions in households with financial assets of at least $100,000. The sample was weighted to match the characteristics of the total online population in terms of gender, age, and region, according to the U.S. Census.
Green is the New Black
Investors see the environment as a large and enduring investment opportunity.
Better than seven in 10 investors (71%) deemed environmental technology a “buy”, the most desirable sector of the six surveyed(3). More than half (54%) said that environmental investing will be an “important focus” for them in the future.
“Protecting the environment is a social and political imperative, and, increasingly, an investing priority as well,” Jankowska said. “Our research shows that investors understand that significant environmental issues represent potential lucrative opportunities for businesses endeavoring to bring real solutions to a global market.”
Investors expressed strong familiarity with environmental issues. Seventy-three percent said they knew at least a fair amount about the Greenhouse Effect and 73% said they knew at least a fair amount about the Energy Star energy efficiency rating. That compares with 77% who said they knew at least a fair amount about mutual funds.
Seventy-one percent of respondents said environmental investments offered the potential for long-term capital growth. In terms of specific investment opportunities, 62% of investors said they consider solar energy a major investment opportunity. It was followed by wind power (57%), hybrid vehicles (53%), and water purification (50%). Ethanol (cited as a major opportunity by 37% of investors) and Eco-tourism (17%) were the least highly rated sectors.
“Environmental investing is not a passing fancy, but a substantial opportunity with real staying power,” Jankowska said. “As an investment, the environment has all the hallmarks of information technology in the early 90s - popular attention, robust demand, high innovation, abundant capital, an enduring need and rising valuations. We believe that we are in the early stages of a long-term secular up-cycle for environment-related companies.”
Social Responsibility, Investment Opportunity Seen As Increasingly Linked
Survey data debunk the stereotypical notion that what’s good for business is bad for the environment.
“When it comes to the environment, social value and economic value are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are increasingly linked,” said Blake Moore, Managing Director and CEO of Allianz Global Investors US Retail. “The greater the focus on the environment, the greater the need for safeguarding or remediation - and that equates to innovation and robust demand for services.”
The survey found that while the environment represents a major financial opportunity for some companies, it should be an essential operating consideration for most.
Eighty-four percent of the investors surveyed believe a business’ profitability will be increasing linked to its ability to address resource sustainability issues. More than two-thirds (67%) of the investors surveyed strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement that “global warming is a serious threat that businesses need to address in order to be successful.”
“The survey shows that in terms of public perception, the environment is serious business,” Moore said.
While investors believe the environment is a serious business issue, they also believe that many companies have yet to view it that way. Nearly eight in 10 investors (78%) say most companies today focus on environmental issues for public relations value rather than financial value.
“The best companies are ahead of the curve, making substantial investment in their environmental business practices,” Jankowska said. “At the same time, we are seeing a paradigm shift in which environmental products and services are moving from the realm of corporate social responsibility or niche activities to core businesses that will generate significant future revenue streams.”
Looking for Help
The survey found that investors are keenly interested in learning more about environment-related investing opportunities, and are looking to financial advisors for help.
Seventy-three percent of investors said they would need to consult a financial advisor for help investing in the environment. Interestingly, among investors with a financial advisor, 83% said their advisor had yet to recommend an environment-related investing opportunity.
“Investors understand that the fact that they recycle or drive a hybrid vehicle does not make them an expert in environmental investing,” Moore said. “Success in this sector requires an understanding of the problem, the market, the competition and, in many cases, the ability to understand and evaluate a new technology. Investors are looking to their advisors for help and many advisors are, in turn, looking for the experience, technical expertise and diversification offered by professionally managed products.”
Blue State? Red State? It’s All Green to Me.
The environment used to be considered a left-leaning issue, but, at least among investors, it has squarely hit the political mainstream.
Forty-one percent of those who say they are likely to make an environmental investment over the next 12 months describe themselves as politically conservative compared with 36% who say they are liberal. Two-thirds of all investors say that a Presidential candidate’s environmental record and positions will have at least some impact on their vote.
Footnotes
1. This information strictly represents the results of the GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media December 2007 public opinion survey and does not represent the views of any investment advisor or mutual fund distributor. The polling results do not represent an investment recommendation or a solicitation.
Posted: Climate Change
25
January
2008
This is From the Sydney Morning Herald , what do you think???
MEAT and milk from cloned farm animals are safe to eat, the US Government has announced, in a move that paves the way for the sale of the food.
But production limits are expected to keep the products from reaching grocers’ shelves for years, and customer scepticism has prompted the US Department of Agriculture to ask for an indefinite delay to educate shoppers before they are given the choice.
After reviewing numerous scientific studies, the US Food and Drug Administration found that food derived from cloned cows, pigs, goats and their offspring is as safe to eat as products from conventionally bred livestock. Stephen Sendoff, director of the FDA’s food safety division, said: “The likelihood that anything would go wrong from a food safety standpoint is unimaginably small.”
The US announcement follows the beginning of public consultation on the issue by the European Food Safety Authority. In a draft opinion, the European regulator gave provisional backing on the grounds that there was no evidence for food safety or environmental concerns.
“No differences exceeding the normal variability have been observed in the composition and nutritional value of meat and milk between healthy clones or the progeny of clones and their conventional counterpart,” the report said. It did, though, highlight animal welfare concerns.
The European Commission said this week that it would consult the public before making a ruling in May.
The US food industry has been holding off selling food products from clones since 2001. Bruce Knight, the US Department of Agriculture under-secretary for marketing and regulatory programs, expected a voluntary moratorium on products from the 600 clones at present on farms to continue for several months.
Even after the ban is lifted in the US, it is unlikely pork chops and steaks from cloned livestock will reach shops because the technology is too expensive to use clones for anything but breeding.
The moratorium does not apply to the offspring of clones, but given that there are 200 million meat- and milk-producing farm animals in America, it will probably take several years before there are enough progeny to have a significant impact on the food supply.
Also, many in the food industry want to wait before introducing food derived from clones. Food makers and sellers fear a trade backlash. They also worry the possibility will scare away customers in the same way that use of hormones to increase milk production spurred many people to turn to organic products.
One organic food advocate, Rachel Griffith, who lives in Milan, Illinois, said she would now shun meat from her favourite grocer and try to buy directly from local farmers, so she knows it comes entirely from conventionally bred animals. She also said she would be careful about which brand of organic milk she bought to avoid any from clones or their offspring.
“I have two children - two young, growing children - and I want them to get healthier, not sicker, after eating their meals,” said Griffith, a 41-year-old health magazine saleswoman.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Centre for Food Safety, urged the US Congress to pass legislation requiring the labelling of food from clones and further study of its long-term safety.
Critics of the use of cloning in agriculture point out that the method used to create identical animals - essentially the same used as to produce Dolly the sheep - is inefficient, with a significant proportion of embryos not developing to maturity. Even some apparently successful cloned embryos are prone to severe developmental problems after birth. Scientists say the loss rates are coming down as the technology improves.
Joyce D’Silva, of Compassion in World Farming, based in Britain, said: “It’s a technology that has arisen out of a huge burden of animal suffering and that is still going on.” She said that even if the embryo loss rates were brought down to acceptable levels, the technology would be detrimental to animal welfare.
Scientists counter that cloning can be used to enhance animal welfare, for example by spreading useful genetic mutations that make animals resistant to diseases such as scrapie.
D’Silva is also concerned that cloned US meat could enter the European food chain even if consumers there did not want it.
Supporters of cloning hope the US Food and Drug Administration’s respected imprimatur, along with a growing appreciation that the technology does not involve genetic modification, will persuade most consumers to view cloning as simply the latest farm technology.
Cloning would be a boon to dairy farmers looking for the best milk producers and slaughterhouses seeking cows, goats and pigs yielding the highest-quality meat. Until now, industry has used other reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation, to obtain prized traits. Through cloning, they would get identical copies of the most valuable animals.
Scientists make a clone by taking the original’s genetic material and placing it into the egg cell of another animal whose own DNA has been removed. The embryo that develops is transferred to a surrogate mother, who gives birth to the matching twin.
Carol Keefer, an animal sciences expert at the University of Maryland who helped the Food and Drug Administration make its determination, said: “The issue of food safety is being brought up by some groups because they object to the process, but that’s a separate issue. They should focus on those concerns.”
Biotechnology companies have been waging a public relations campaign to change public perceptions of “Frankenfoods”.
Most recently, the two leading cloning companies, ViaGen and Trans Ova Genetics, sought to ease minds by developing a system for tracking clones as they make their way from farms to processing plants to shops. Groceries could tell customers whether a product came from a clone, but the system does not account for food made from the offspring of clones, the probable source.
The Baltimore Sun, Agence France-Presse, Guardian News & Media
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
25
January
2008
Greenpeace condemns Alberta climate change plan.Premier Ed Stelmach’s climate change announcement will continue to allow a dramatic increase of greenhouse gas
emissions in Alberta.
The Alberta government set new provincial goals Thursday for greenhouse gas reductions that are less stringent than Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol or even the current federal government’s lesser targets.
Under a plan Premier Ed Stelmach’s government described as a responsible one for a growing and oil-rich province, Alberta’s overall climate-changing emissions by 2050 would be 14 per cent below 2005 levels.
what will it take for these kind of thinkers to get the message?
Posted: Climate Change
