29
February
2008
TOKYO (AFP) — Japan said Thursday it was arranging a meeting of national leaders to address climate change as it prepares to hold the Group of Eight summit of major industrial economies this summer.
A newspaper report said Japan has invited heads of state and government from 16 nations, which together account for 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, for parallel talks to the G8 summit.
A UN conference in Bali in December set a goal of reaching a deal to succeed the landmark Kyoto Protocol by the end of next year.
The United States, the leading opponent of Kyoto, has recently tried to demonstrate a leadership role including by gathering negotiators from the 16 major emitting nations for talks in late January in Hawaii.
“In the chairman’s summary of the climate talks in Hawaii, participants discussed holding talks of heads of state around the middle of this year to kickstart the Bali action plan,” said Koji Yagi, head of the Japanese foreign ministry’s climate change division.
“The countries involved are currently discussing that, but nothing is decided,” he told AFP.
The Asahi Shimbun, quoting unnamed sources, said that Japan had invited leaders of the 16 nations for the parallel summit from July 7 to 9 in the northern mountain resort of Toyako.
The talks would aim to come up with medium- and long-term goals by each nation to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for heating up the planet.
The newspaper also said Japan was hoping to invite more African nations to take part in the Toyako summit, which Tokyo wants to focus in large part on global health and poverty.
The 16 nations that took part in the Hawaii talks were Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, South Africa and the United States.
The United States is the only major industrial nation to reject the Kyoto treaty, which President George W. Bush argues is unfair as it makes no demands of emerging economies such as China.
Japan has championed the Kyoto Protocol, which is named for its ancient capital. But it is far behind in meeting its own commitments as its economy wakes up from a long slumber.
Posted: Climate Change
28
February
2008
CANBERRA (AFP) — Australia and New Zealand agreed Wednesday to work together to tackle climate change now that the new government in Canberra has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who ratified the treaty as his first official act after the previous government had refused to do so, made the announcement at a joint news conference with his New Zealand counterpart Helen Clark.
“The fact that both Australia and New Zealand now are full ratification states in relation to the Kyoto Protocol means that we have an unprecedented opportunity to work closely and seamlessly globally in the international negotiations,” Rudd told reporters.
Rudd said the two countries’ new partnership would be “reflected in the combined positions we take across the many meetings which will occur across (the) international community” following a conference in Indonesia in December.
The Bali conference yielded an action plan that set a late 2009 deadline for a landmark new treaty to cut global-warming greenhouse gases once the current Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
Clark said it made a huge difference to New Zealand that it could now combine with Australia in talks on climate change.
“We are absolutely delighted that Australia has ratified Kyoto,” she said.
“It puts us on the same page in the work we must now do.
The leaders also discussed economic integration, ongoing problems in the South Pacific, East Timor and war-torn Afghanistan, where both nations have deployed troops.
Rudd said the two countries would also work together on the big challenges posed by the South Pacific, including universal education, health care and law and order.
Posted: Climate Change
28
February
2008
Radiohead join battle against climate change
By Robyn Powell
Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has urged Europe to commit to yearly targets to reduce its carbon emissions.
Radiohead’s Thom Yorke is calling on Europe to cut carbon emissions
Launching the Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask Europe campaign, the musician called on the European Union to set stringent emission targets - 30 per cent reductions by 2020 and 90 per cent by 2050.
The campaign brings together Friends of the Earth groups from 17 countries which have urged their governments to sign up to legally-binding annual targets so commitments were met.
They also want the EU to force members to cut greenhouse gases year-on-year through a strong compliance system. Friends of the Earth Europe had criticised the European Union’s proposal to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, for giving no guarantee these targets would be met.
The European campaign comes after the Big Ask in the UK, which helped secure the anticipated Climate Change Law. The bill, expected to be introduced this summer, would make the UK the first country to set legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gases.
Yorke, who helped launch the UK campaign, said: “We will never wake from the nightmare of climate change unless our national governments and the European Union act. They are the only ones who can put the structures in place that will help us tackle climate change.”
“By committing to annual cuts in our emissions at a national and European level we can play our part in tackling climate change and set an example to the rest of the world to follow.”
advertisement
Friends of the Earth Europe’s chairman Martin Rocholl said: “It is too easy for governments to ignore long term targets on climate change. Annual targets will make today’s and tomorrow’s politicians accountable for cutting emissions.”
“By taking action, Europe can lead the way in the fight against climate change and show how countries can boost their economies, stay competitive, create jobs and improve the environment at the same time.”
Posted: Climate Change
28
February
2008
The EPA is accepting public comments until March 27, 2008 on its proposal to eliminate clean air standards for factory farms. Federal laws currently require industry of any type to report hazardous substances they are spewing into the atmosphere, but according to the EPA, factory farms, should no longer have to do that. The EPA’s proposal doesn’t even attempt to hide its reasoning behind this decision. Instead, it simply says these landmark exemptions should be made “to reduce the burden on the regulated community.”
Posted: Climate Change
27
February
2008
The same fresh smell and refreshing feel of our Rose Monsoon Hydrating Mist is now shipping in an all-new bottle. Designed to be lightweight, leak-proof, and environmentally friendly, you’ll be delighted at the heavenly mist produced by the new atomiser.
this product and the entire range of Miessence Organic Products, can be purchased by following this link : WWW.LOVE.MIONEGROUP.COM
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
26
February
2008
There’s a good chance that the United States, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China are segmenting completely from Europe with regard to genetically modified food policy making. In Europe, the emphasis seems to have gone from regulation of GM crop growing and shipping to end-product labeling. For example, the German government has determined it will host a “GM-Free” food label. Milk, meat, eggs and cheese will earn the ‘’GM free'’ badge, only if animals did not feed upon any genetically modified products. Animal products can still bear the label, however, even if the livestock was exposed to genetically altered vitamins and additives, as long as there were no available alternatives.
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
25
February
2008
What is organic?
Organic refers to the way agricultural products—food and fiber—are grown and processed. Organic food production is based on a system of farming that maintains and replenishes soil fertility without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers. Organic foods are minimally processed without artificial ingredients, preservatives, or irradiation to maintain the integrity of the food.
Is there an official definition of “organic”?
The following excerpt is from the definition of “organic” that the National Organic Standards Board adopted in April 1995: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.”
What does “Certified Organic” mean?
“Certified Organic” means the item has been grown according to strict uniform standards that are verified by independent state or private organizations. Certification includes inspections of farm fields and processing facilities, detailed record keeping, and periodic testing of soil and water to ensure that growers and handlers are meeting the standards which have been set.
Can any type of agricultural product become certified organic?
Yes, any agricultural product that meets third-party or state certification requirements may be considered organic. Organic foods are becoming available in an impressive variety, including pasta, prepared sauces, frozen juices, frozen meals, milk, ice cream and frozen novelties, cereals, meat, poultry, breads, soups, chocolate, cookies, beer, wine, vodka and more. These foods, in order to be certified organic, have all been grown and processed according to organic standards and must maintain a high level of quality. Organic fiber products, too, have moved beyond T-shirts, and include bed and bath linens, tablecloths, napkins, cosmetic puffs, feminine hygiene products, and men’s, women’s and children’s clothing in a wide variety of styles.
Who regulates the certified organic claims?
The federal government set standards for the production, processing and certification of organic food in the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). The National Organic Standards Board was then established to develop guidelines and procedures to regulate all organic crops. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) during December 2000 unveiled detailed regulations to implement OFPA. These took effect on April 21, 2001, with an 18-month implementation period ending October 2002. At that time, any food labeled organic must meet these national organic standards. USDA’s National Organic Program oversees the program.
also, IFOAM and Australian Certified Organic symbols are the ones to look out for.
Are all organic products completely free of pesticide residues?
Certified organic products have been grown and handled according to strict standards without toxic and persistent chemical inputs. However, organic crops are inadvertently exposed to agricultural chemicals that are now pervasive in rain and ground water due to their overuse during the past fifty years in North America, and due to drift via wind and rain.
Do organic farmers ever use pesticides?
Prevention is the organic farmer’s primary strategy for disease, weed, and insect control. By building healthy soils, organic farmers find that healthy plants are better able to resist disease and insects. Organic producers often select species that are well adapted for the climate and therefore resist disease and pests. When pest populations get out of balance, growers will try various options like insect predators, mating disruption, traps, and barriers. If these fail, permission may be granted by the certifier to apply botanical or other nonpersistent pest controls under restricted conditions. Botanicals are derived from plants and are broken down quickly by oxygen and sunlight.
How will purchasing organic products help keep our water clean?
Conventional agricultural methods can cause water contamination. Beginning in May 1995, a network of environmental organizations, including the Environmental Working Group, began testing tap water for herbicides in cities across the United States’ Corn Belt, and in Louisiana and Maryland. The results revealed widespread contamination of tap water with many different pesticides at levels that present serious health risks. In some cities, herbicides in tap water exceed federal lifetime health standards for weeks or months at a time. The organic farmer’s elimination of polluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching, in combination with soil building, works to prevent contamination, and protects and conserves water resources.
Is organic food better for you?
There is no conclusive evidence at this time to suggest that organically produced foods are more nutritious. Rather, organic foods and fiber are spared the application of toxic and persistent insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers. Many EPA-approved pesticides were registered long before extensive research linked these chemicals to cancer and other diseases. In the long run, organic farming techniques provide a safer, more sustainable environment for everyone.
Why does organic food sometimes cost more?
Prices for organic foods reflect many of the same costs as conventional items in terms of growing, harvesting, transportation and storage. Organically produced foods must meet stricter regulations governing all of these steps, so the process is often more labor- and management-intensive, and farming tends to be on a smaller scale. There is also mounting evidence that if all the indirect costs of conventional food production—cleanup of polluted water, replacement of eroded soils, costs of health care for farmers and their workers—were factored into the price of food, organic foods would cost the same or, more likely, be cheaper.
Isn’t organic food just a fad?
No. U. S. sales of organic food totaled $5.4 billion in 1998, about $6.5 billion in 1999, and reached nearly $7.8 billion in 2000. The market has grown 20%–24% annually during the 1990s. The adoption of national standards for certification is expected to open up new markets for U. S. organic producers. Internationally, organic sales continue to grow as well.
Contributed by: OTA
For more information visit:
http://www.ota.com
http://love.mionegroup.com
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
25
February
2008
the following report is certainly evidence of how mainstream corporate america thinks. how is it possible that people with so little insight and absolute disregard for the health of our people and planet, are allowed to be leaders of our largest corporations and the government?
it is time to bring these people to the table and made to account for actions, for the destruction they are causing and have caused our environment.
if the government is for the people by the people then how come corporations have been classified as “people”??and treated as such in the law courts and market place?
it has long been thought that gm had invented economical, sound, safe oil/petroleum free motor vehicles…what has happened to them and why is they has this technology not been used? why are they not obligated through a commitment to the commuinty to expose it and bring it to the market? where is our code of ethics? surely we have a need to serve our community before serving our bank accounts? thousands of dollars are spent on education, and preparing the human race for a life of business, professions and assorted work in the market place, but where is the eduction and examples of ethical business and sustainable living in all of this???
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a “total crock of s—,” saying his views had no bearing on GM’s commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.
Lutz, GM’s outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.
In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those “spewing virtual vitriol” at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were “missing the big picture.”
“What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is … hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support,” he said in a posting titled, “Talk About a Crock.”
GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology.
“My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors,” he wrote.
Lutz said GM was continuing development of the battery-powered, plug-in Chevy Volt and other alternatives to traditional internal combustion engines.
GM is racing against Toyota Motor Corp to be first to market a plug-in hybrid car that can be recharged at a standard electric outlet.
Posted: Climate Change
25
February
2008
Source: Adage.com
Published: Friday, February 22, 2008
If a meal of heritage turkey breast, roasted root vegetables and organic milk sounds like dorm food, you must be a member of Generation Y. University grub has come a long way from sloppy Joes and french fries.
College students, increasingly concerned about the source and quality of food they’re eating, are demanding that schools purchase regional produce. That’s forced major food-service companies to scramble for grass-roots alternatives — and allowed some nimble regional rivals with good local connections to elbow their way into the $5 billion on-campus-dining market.
“There are so many organizations and different groups that have a cause,” said Christy Cook, sustainability coordinator-Southeast region at Sodexho, a $7.3 billion company that also services health-care, government and corporate institutions. “One of the biggest trends I’ve seen is people are looking for more locally sourced produce, supporting the community and the farmers.”
The catch, though, is while students are demanding organic and local fare, they aren’t always sure what that means — or how it tastes.
Different ideas
Some, Ms. Cook said, think local means within 10 miles or inside the city, while others think it means within 150 miles. Many of these students, she said, also like to have bananas and strawberries for breakfast — all year long.
“You have to balance idealism and reality,” she said, adding that education is critical. Ms. Cook often brings local farmers to talk to the school and sometimes arranges trips to local farms.
Jamie Moore, director-sourcing and sustainability at Eat’n Park Hospitality Group, said his college business has grown about 30% to 43 schools in the past six years. Mr. Moore attributes that to the launch of FarmSource, a pledge to source produce from within 125 miles. He added that each of his new accounts was taken from a major supplier: Sodexho, Aramark or Bon Appetit.
This year Sodexho has rolled out a platform of its own, PlanIt. The first step was a comprehensive sustainability-education program for management and clients. The program will also include a database of sustainable, local and organic products.
Spoiled? No, it’s organic
Milk has certainly been a problem for Sodexho and many other suppliers. When the company, responding to a student movement, found a local supplier for client Denison University in Ohio, the new product didn’t meet expectations.
“The students noticed that the flavors were different,” said Ronnie Hinz, director-administrative services at Denison. “Some of the students at first said, ‘I don’t like this milk.’” Eventually the students adjusted.
Ms. Cook said Sodexho experienced problems with organic milk at a Florida school. Onion grass was in season and apparently was giving the product a greenish color and the flavor of onions.
Free-range meats present their own difficulties. Sodexho client Menlo College served heritage turkeys to its students. Heritage turkeys are so called because they belong to breeds older than the broad-breasted white, which usually graces the Thanksgiving table. Heritage turkeys take twice as long to grow, cost upward of $60 per bird, and have a gamier flavor and more sinewy texture.
“Students came back and said, ‘There’s something wrong with this meat; it tastes like it’s spoiled,’” Ms. Cook said. Chefs explained that it was a different kind of turkey, but students asked why it couldn’t be prepared in a manner more familiar to them.
The response from their chefs, she said, was “‘Why would we do that? “We’re offering premium product at a great opportunity to try something a lot of people want to learn about. We don’t want to turn it into a butterball.’”
Posted: Climate Change, Is it really organic ?
24
February
2008
SWEETWATER, Tex. — The wind turbines that recently went up on Louis Brooks’s ranch are twice as high as the Statue of Liberty, with blades that span as wide as the wingspan of a jumbo jet. More important from his point of view, he is paid $500 a month to permit 78 of them on his land, with 76 more on the way.
“That’s just money you’re hearing,” he said as they hummed in a brisk breeze recently.
Texas, once the oil capital of North America, is rapidly turning into the capital of wind power. After breakneck growth the last three years, Texas has reached the point that more than 3 percent of its electricity, enough to supply power to one million homes, comes from wind turbines.
Texans are even turning tapped-out oil fields into wind farms, and no less an oilman than Boone Pickens is getting into alternative energy.
“I have the same feelings about wind,” Mr. Pickens said in an interview, “as I had about the best oil field I ever found.” He is planning to build the biggest wind farm in the world, a $10 billion behemoth that could power a small city by itself.
Wind turbines were once a marginal form of electrical generation. But amid rising concern about greenhouse gases from coal-burning power plants, wind power is booming. Installed wind capacity in the United States grew 45 percent last year, albeit from a small base, and a comparable increase is expected this year.
At growth rates like that, experts said, wind power could eventually make an important contribution to the nation’s electrical supply. It already supplies about 1 percent of American electricity, powering the equivalent of 4.5 million homes. Environmental advocates contend it could eventually hit 20 percent, as has already happened in Denmark. Energy consultants say that 5 to 7 percent is a more realistic goal in this country.
The United States recently overtook Spain as the world’s second-largest wind power market, after Germany, with $9 billion invested last year. A recent study by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., projected $65 billion in investment from 2007 to 2015.
Despite the attraction of wind as a nearly pollution-free power source, it does have limitations. Though the gap is closing, electricity from wind remains costlier than that generated from fossil fuels. Moreover, wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, and the hottest days, when electricity is needed most, are usually not windy.
The turbines are getting bigger and their blades can kill birds and bats. Aesthetic and wildlife issues have led to opposition emerging around the country, particularly in coastal areas like Cape Cod. Some opposition in Texas has cropped up as well, including lawsuits to halt wind farms that were thought to be eyesores or harmful to wetlands.
But the opposition has been limited, and has done little to slow the rapid growth of wind power in Texas. Some Texans see the sleek new turbines as a welcome change in the landscape.
“Texas has been looking at oil and gas rigs for 100 years, and frankly, wind turbines look a little nicer,” said Jerry Patterson, the Texas land commissioner, whose responsibilities include leasing state lands for wind energy development. “We’re No. 1 in wind in the United States, and that will never change.”
Texas surpassed California as the top wind farm state in 2006. In January alone, new wind farms representing $700 million of investment went into operation in Texas, supplying power sufficient for 100,000 homes.
Supporters say Texas is ideal for wind-power development, not just because it is windy. It also has sparsely populated land for wind farms, fast-growing cities and a friendly regulatory environment for developers.
“Texas could be a model for the entire nation,” said Patrick Woodson, a senior development executive with E.On, a German utility operating here.
The quaint windmills of old have been replaced by turbines that stand as high as 20-story buildings, with blades longer than a football field and each capable of generating electricity for small communities. powerful turbines are able to capture power even when the wind is relatively weak, and they help to lower the cost per kilowatt hour.
Much of the boom in the United States is being driven by foreign power companies with experience developing wind projects, including Iberdrola of Spain, Energias de Portugal and Windkraft Nord of Germany. Foreign companies own two-thirds of the wind projects under construction in Texas.
A short-term threat to the growth of wind power is the looming expiration of federal clean-energy tax credits, which Congress has allowed to lapse several times over the years. Advocates have called for extending those credits and eventually enacting a national renewable-power standard that would oblige states to expand their use of clean power sources.
A longer-term problem is potential bottlenecks in getting wind power from the places best equipped to produce it to the populous areas that need electricity. The part of the United States with the highest wind potential is a corridor stretching north from Texas through the middle of the country, including sparsely populated states like Montana and the Dakotas. Power is needed most in the dense cities of the coasts, but building new transmission lines over such long distances is certain to be expensive and controversial.
“We need a national vision for transmission like we have with the national highway system,” said Robert Gramlich, policy director for the American Wind Energy Association. “We have to get over the hump of having a patchwork of electric utility fiefdoms.”
Texas is better equipped to deal with the transmission problems that snarl wind energy in other states because a single agency operates the electrical grid and manages the deregulated utility market in most of the state.
Last July, the Texas Public Utility Commission approved transmission lines across the state capable of delivering as much as 25,000 megawatts of wind energy by 2012, presuming the boom continues. That would be five times the wind power generated in the state today, and it would drive future national growth.
Shell and the TXU Corporation are planning to build a 3,000-megawatt wind farm north of here in the Texas Panhandle, leapfrogging two FPL Energy Texas wind farms to become the biggest in the world.
Not to be outdone, Mr. Pickens is planning his own 150,000-acre Panhandle wind farm of 4,000 megawatts that would be even larger and cost him $10 billion.
“I like wind because it’s renewable and it’s clean and you know you are not going to be dealing with a production decline curve,” Mr. Pickens said. “Decline curves finally wore me out in the oil business.”
At the end of 2007, Texas ranked No. 1 in the nation with installed wind power of 4,356 megawatts (and 1,238 under construction), far outdistancing California’s 2,439 megawatts (and 165 under construction). Minnesota and Iowa came in third and fourth with almost 1,300 megawatts each (and 46 and 116 under construction, respectively).
Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Oregon, states with smaller populations than Texas, all get 5 to 8 percent of their power from wind farms, according to estimates by the American Wind Energy Association.
It has dawned on many Texans in recent years that wind power, whatever its other pros and cons, represents a potent new strategy for rural economic development.
Since the wind boom began a few years ago, the total value of property here in Nolan County has doubled, and the county judge, Tim Fambrough, estimated it would increase an additional 25 percent this year. County property taxes are going down, home values are going up and the county has extra funds to remodel the courthouse and improve road maintenance.
“Wind reminds us of the old oil and gas booms,” Mr. Fambrough said.
Teenagers who used to flee small towns like Sweetwater after high school are sticking around to take technical courses in local junior colleges and then work on wind farms. Marginal ranches and cotton farms are worth more with wind turbines on them.
“I mean, even the worst days for wind don’t compare to the busts in the oil business,” said Bobby Clark, a General Electric wind technician who gave up hauling chemicals in the oil fields southwest of here to live and work in Sweetwater. “I saw my daddy go from rags to riches and back in the oil business, and I sleep better.”
Wind companies are remodeling abandoned buildings, and new stores, hotels and restaurants have opened around this old railroad town.
Dandy’s Western Wear, the local cowboy attire shop, cannot keep enough python skin and cowhide boots in stock because of all the Danes and Germans who have come to town to invest and work in the wind fields, then take home Texas souvenirs.
“Wind has invigorated our business like you wouldn’t believe,” said Marty Foust, Dandy’s owner, who recently put in new carpeting and air-conditioning. “When you watch the news you can get depressed about the economy, but we don’t get depressed. We’re now in our own bubble.”
Posted: Climate Change
