mintpressnews--2019-08-02--Prohibiting Maintenance of Tanker Off Yemeni Coast Saudis Risk Explosion and Environmental Disaster

Prohibiting Maintenance of Tanker Off Yemeni Coast, Saudis Risk Explosion and Environmental Disaster

HODEIDA, YEMEN — Officials in Yemen’s western port city of Hodeida have expressed concern to MintPress that the deserted Safer FSO vessel, filled with an estimated 1.1 million barrels of crude oil, is vulnerable to an explosion or a leak due to increasing temperature, high humidity, and maintenance failures. They say that ship’s boilers and coolers have been stopped owing to a lack of diesel fuel and the body of the tanker is beginning to suffer from corrosion following multiple failed efforts to unload its cargo of crude oil.  According to Yemeni officials, if an urgent rescue operation is not launched, the vessel could create an environmental disaster four times greater than the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, one of the worst man-made environmental disasters in history.  In 2015, when the Saudi-led Coalition military campaign began in Yemen, Saudi Arabia prevented the oil-laden vessel from leaving Hodeida port and forced crew members to abandon it, leaving important maintenance work undone and creating what is essentially a floating time bomb. Since the vessel was abandoned, the Coalition has repeatedly prevented other ships from refueling the tanker with diesel to operate its generators used for cooling and to discharge gas emitted by the crude oil.                 An oil spill in the Red Sea port would potentially destroy marine ecosystems and pose a threat to coastal tourism. Worst of all, officials say, it could leave millions of people in Hodeida district without clean drinking water. Experts at IR Consilium, a consultancy firm focusing on maritime law and security, warned that a spill in the area would force multiple desalination plants surrounding the Red Sea to close, depriving millions of access to drinking water.  Reports have warned that if a leak does take place, the fallout could potentially cover an area of 939 trillion square meters (approx. 366,000 square miles), meaning that the effects of the environmental disaster would reach beyond the Red Sea and extend into neighboring bodies of water. Based on current oil prices, the value of crude oil estimated to be stored aboard the Safer FSO is reportedly more than $70 million.  Moreover, an oil spill could also shutter Yemen’s Hodeida port, the gateway for 90 percent of the country’s food, medical and aid supplies, by strangling traffic on one of the world’s main waterways, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Such a spill would have a tangible impact on the world economy, according to a recent report published by the Atlantic Council.  The ship Safer is a large tanker with a built-in weight of 409,000 metric tons and a capacity of about 3 million barrels of oil. Owned by the Safer Oil Company (SEPOC), it first sailed in 1986, later becoming the world’s third-largest floating port for oil storage and unloading.  In 1988, SEPOC anchored the ship permanently off the Ras Essa oil port, 4.8 miles offshore from the Yemeni coast on the Red Sea, and connected it to the 430 km oil export pipeline originating from Marib. The ship was outfitted with equipment to allow the transfer of crude oil to other transshipment vessels.  The Safer soon became the main export terminal for light crude oil extracted from Sector 18 in the Safer region of Marib, east of Yemen’s capital city of Sana`a, as well as Sector 9 in the Malik area of the country’s Shabwa governorate. It is designed to undergo constant maintenance in order to prevent the build-up of explosive gases.  The Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis blame each other for failing to reach an agreement over the fate of the tanker. The Houthis want guarantees that the revenue from the oil aboard the tanker — estimated at more than $70 million, as noted above — will go to pay the salaries of Yemen’s public-sector employees and be used to restore power to the province of Hodeida.  The Coalition wants the revenue to be kept by Coalition countries, much as the oil revenues from Yemen’s southern regions where Saudi Arabia and the UAE are extracting oil from Shabwa, Balahaf and Hadramout and transferring the revenues to the National Bank in Saudi Arabia.  Mark Lowcock, the UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, pointed out that this was additionally frustrating because Houthi authorities had actually contacted the UN in early 2018 requesting assistance with the tanker and promising to facilitate their [UN] work. Lowcock stated:  In November of 2016, Coalition forces prevented the Safer Company’s Rama-1 ships from entering Rass Issa in Hodeida to unload 300 tons of diesel to supply the Safer FSO enough fuel to operate its generators and safety systems, according to a letter submitted by Middle East Shipping Company Limited to the Yemen Oil Company dated November 7, 2016.  Saudi Coalition countries and their local allies have recently revived the controversy surrounding the Safer FSO, claiming that rescue of the ship justifies a military campaign to seize control of the area and blaming the Houthis for ship’s condition. But according to Houthi officials, appeals to rescue the ship made by both the Houthi-led government in Sana`a and the Safer Company to the Coalition and to the international community have been ignored.  In 2016, the Safer Company explained to the Coalition the importance of supplying diesel to the floating tanker, stating: “The generation of electricity in the ship [is] made by steam turbines as desalinated water from the sea; steam is also the basis of the floating tank and to get it diesel must be available to run the boiler.” Safer added that supplying the ship with diesel is “the only solution to save the situation.” If the fuel is not supplied, the company expects a fire or explosion on the ship to lead to unprecedented pollution of the Red Sea.  For their part, officials in Sana`a have repeatedly warned of potential disaster in the Red Sea. On November 4, 2016. the General Authority for Maritime Affairs sent a letter to its Coalition counterparts confirming the need for the floating ship to be supplied with diesel to restart it and carry out the necessary maintenance work to avoid the occurrence of large-scale pollution from the leakage of oil to the sea, blaming Coalition forces for any consequences of a leak.  On December 21, 2016, Yemen’s Minister of Oil and Minerals asked leaders of the oil bodies and institutions to find a solution to the impending crisis. He repeated his warnings in May of 2017; the situation, however, continued to worsen. In April, 2017, the General Authority for Maritime Affairs announced that the cessation of most activities, including maintenance on the floating tanker, threatens a maritime disaster that will affect Yemen and the neighboring countries, but the Coalition showed no interest.  Mohammed Matouk, the director of Yemen’s Maritime Affairs Authority, said:  Warnings by Yemeni officials have often been accompanied by appeals to the United Nations. On November 2018, Hisham Sharaf, the Foreign Minister in Sana`a, delivered a message to the secretary-general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, calling on the international body to intervene in order to allow the maintenance of the ship. That plea has yet to be answered.  Feature photo | The SMIT Hunter and FSO Safer are pictured off of Yemen’s shore in 1992. Maasmondmaritime | Flickr  Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist. He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media.


tass--2019-08-12--Illegal amber extraction in Ukraines north may lead to environmental disaster official

Illegal amber extraction in Ukraine’s north may lead to environmental disaster — official

KIEV, August 12. /TASS/. Illegal production of amber in the north of Ukraine may turn this territory into an environmental disaster area, head of the National Police of Ukraine Sergei Knyazev said at a meeting on combating the illegal amber extraction on Monday.  "[There will be] catastrophic consequences for the environment — more than 6,200 hectares of damaged forest land and more than 1,000 hectares of agricultural land," he said.  "In the absence of mechanisms for environmental and restoration work, further developments may lead to the need to declare the northern part of our country an environmental disaster area," he concluded.  According to Knyazev, the illegal production, which is going on openly, involves local residents, who have repeatedly resisted attempts by state representatives to stop the unlawful amber mining. The head of police also noted that now the issue has for the first time been raised at the national level.  The meeting on illegal amber mining was chaired by President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky. In his opening remarks, the president noted that uncontrolled extraction of semiprecious stones has been a serious problem since 2014.


anonnews--2019-10-05--The Locations And Names of the Top 100 People Destroying the Planet

The human species has a unique responsibility because they are the only creatures on this earth that possess the power to destroy everything living here. We also have the ability to save the planet too, if we take the correct actions.  We are self-aware creatures and when we are paying attention we can actually comprehend the impact that our actions will have on the world around us. We have put this sacred responsibility in the hands of governments and corporations who wish only to exploit the earth and everyone on it.  We look in the opposite direction as the most ruthless among us transform our beautiful planet into a toxic wasteland. At this time, we are doing a horrible job as a species in fulfilling our responsibility to our home, but the root of the problem is the greed of a small class of powerful corporations and political organizations.  The images below show some of the worst polluters according to the Carbon Majors Report, WRI, and the Forbes billionaire list.  For the past century, there has been a consistent trend of manmade disasters resulting in tremendous environmental damage all over the world. These completely avoidable environmental disasters have all been a result of the greed and carelessness of big business and the military industrial complex. Oil companies are the worst offenders in this regard, as their industry is completely obsolete to begin with.  Clean, inexpensive energy is a very necessary possibility, so the fact that we are even still bothering with oil when we see all the problems it causes is completely insane from a humanitarian or environmental perspective. The only reason we are still using oil based products is that the people who maintain a monopoly over this resource spend billions to ensure that they are the only game in town.  Ironically enough, the same people that are responsible for most of this environmental degradation also set up nature based foundations and other phony environmental organizations. These organizations are used to launder money and to advance eugenics depopulation programs. The ruling class understands that human beings naturally have an interest in preserving the environment and typically will not question or criticize actions taken in the name of environmental protection.  The average citizens aren’t responsible for the majority of the world’s environmental destruction, nor are they responsible for the majority of the world’s carbon output. In fact, the 50 largest transport sea vessels produce more carbon than all the cars in the world. These are military vessels, oil tankers and other transport vehicles for corporations and governments.  Howard Zinn’s incredible research in his best selling book “A Peoples History of the United States Of America” reveals that “In 1992 more than a 100 countries participated in the earth summit environmental conference in Brazil. Statistics showed that the armed forces of the world were responsible for two thirds of the gasses that depleted the ozone layer. But when it was suggested that the earth summit consider the effects of the military on environmental degradation the United States delegation objected and the suggestion was defeated.”  The general public is not to blame for the environmental crisis that stands before us, we have inherited it from the careless governments and corporations who suppress clean energy and are responsible for the vast majority of the world’s pollution.  Despite their obvious guilt, the perpetrators of these crimes place the blame on everyone but themselves and use their political power so they can actually benefit from all of the destruction that they are causing. At least knowing who they are is half the battle in the mission of holding them accountable.


sputnik--2019-07-24--Floating Bomb UN Warns Deserted Oil Tanker in Red Sea Threatens to Turn Into Major Disaster

‘Floating Bomb’: UN Warns Deserted Oil Tanker in Red Sea Threatens to Turn Into Major Disaster

The United Nations has expressed alarm over the abandoned Safer FSO (which stands for floating storage and offloading) tanker, left unattended off the war-torn Yemeni coast of Al Hudaydah and eroding since 2015, CNBC reports. The UN warned that the vessel, believed to hold 1.14 million barrels of oil, could explode or be torn apart, releasing the crude into the environment, which could result in it becoming one of the worst such man-made disasters.  The platform was earlier branded a “massive floating bomb” in the Red Sea by the NATO-linked US think tank the Atlantic Council. They predicted that volatile gases released from the storage tank in the corrosive maritime environment could lead to a blast.  At the same time, UN officials are said to be blocked from the vessel despite the potential danger and cannot inspect the situation or do anything to avert a possible catastrophe.  Although the Houthi authorities that control the area where the tanker is anchored reportedly requested help and promised to assist in 2018, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Matt Lowcock recently revealed to the Security Council that access continues to be delayed.  “If the tanker ruptures or explodes, we could see the coastline polluted all along the Red Sea. Depending on the time of year and water currents, the spill could reach from Bab el Mandeb to the Suez Canal — and potentially as far as the Strait of Hormuz”, Lowcock said, as cited by the US broadcaster, pointing at the potentially disastrous impact on the environment, regional shipping, and the global economy.  Meanwhile, the Saudi-backed Yemeni government has raised alarm that the Safer FSO could explode, triggering an environmental disaster that could be greater than the Exxon Valez oil spill in 1989.  The ongoing conflict between the Houthis and the Yemini government, backed by Saudi Arabia and the UN, is said to have complicated the issue, with both sides pointing the finger at the other. The Houthis are reportedly ready to allow inspectors to assess the situation on condition that they receive the profit from selling the oil on board the Safer FSO tanker, which is estimated to be worth more than $70 million.  Yemen has been suffering from a military conflict and related humanitarian crisis for several years. It began when Houthi rebels from the country’s north drove the government from power in a protracted mass upheaval between September 2014 and March 2015.


globalresearch--2019-01-17--Report US Oil and Gas Expansion Threatens to Unleash Climate Pollution Equivalent to Nearly 1000

Report: U.S. Oil and Gas Expansion Threatens to Unleash Climate Pollution Equivalent to Nearly 1,000 Coal Plants

The U.S. oil and gas industry has the potential to unleash the largest burst of new carbon emissions in the world through 2050, new research released today has found. Without action to curtail this unprecedented expansion of drilling from Texas to North Dakota to Pennsylvania and beyond, new U.S. oil and gas development could enable 120 billion tons of new carbon pollution – equivalent to the lifetime emissions of nearly 1,000 coal-fired power plants.  The findings come on the heels of the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C” from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S.’s Fourth National Climate Assessment, which both detailed the intensifying human and economic toll of unchecked climate change. Previous research has shown that existing oil and gas fields and coal mines already contain enough carbon to push the world beyond the goals of the Paris Agreement. The permitting of new extraction projects and related infrastructure is completely out of synch with meeting climate targets, and also out of step with a massive movement of communities fighting the fossil fuel industry around the country.  “Our findings present an urgent and existential emergency for lawmakers in the United States at all levels of government. The oil and gas industry is expanding further and faster in the United States than in any other country at precisely the time when we must begin rapidly decarbonizing to prevent runaway climate disaster,” said Kelly Trout, report co-author and senior research analyst at Oil Change International. “We’re at this crisis point because of failing political decisions to allow unfettered fracking, permit a massive buildout of pipelines, lift the crude export ban, and subsidize a climate-wrecking industry with billions of taxpayer dollars. If U.S. leaders do not start saying ‘no’ to this industry and put policies in place for a managed decline of fossil fuel production, they could cripple the world’s chances of staving off climate catastrophe.”  The report defines a five-point checklist for what U.S. policymakers must do to show real climate leadership:  “This report should be a wake-up call for elected officials who consider themselves to be climate leaders. We need a complete overhaul of our economy with a Green New Deal, and that overhaul must include standing up to the fossil fuel industry in order to take us off this path of devastation for our climate and communities. Anything less than a full, swift, and just managed decline of fossil fuel production is too little, too late,” Trout said.  The report, entitled Drilling towards Disaster: Why U.S. oil and gas expansion is incompatible with climate limits, was researched and written by Oil Change International and is being released in partnership with the following organizations who have endorsed the findings of the report: Amazon Watch, BOLD Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth U.S., Food & Water Watch, Greenpeace USA, Hip Hop Caucus, Indigenous Environmental Network, Labor Network for Sustainability, Oil Change USA, Our Revolution, People’s Action, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, Working Families Party, and 350.org.  The report can be found here.  “This landmark report clearly lays out the grim reality of our addiction to fossil fuels. It’s a reality that Indigenous peoples have been saying for decades: that we are destroying the ecosystems of Mother Earth and placing countless lives at risk because of fossil fuels,” said Dallas Goldtooth, Keep it in the Ground Campaigner for the Indigenous Environmental Network. “It is time for all leaders to wake up! We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and justly transition our society to renewable, sustainable energy right now! The clock is ticking.” “Addressing the climate crisis by only considering fossil fuel demand is fighting with one hand tied behind our back,” said Nicole Ghio, Senior Fossil Fuels Program Manager at Friends of the Earth. “To avert climate disaster, we need a Green New Deal that protects workers, empowers communities, and phases out all fossil fuels.” “It’s clearer by the day that we’re drilling toward a climate catastrophe,” said Shaye Wolf, climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Every new lease, permit and subsidy granted to this dirty industry pushes us closer to disaster. America’s oil and gas production is a carbon bomb we must defuse through a thoughtful phase-out and a just transition to clean energy.” “This report confirms what our indigenous allies have known for decades: we must keep fossil fuels in the ground,” said Kevin Koenig, Climate and Energy Director at Amazon Watch. “We are already in a hole and we cannot afford to dig ourselves any deeper by continuing to expand oil and gas infrastructure – in the United States, the Amazon, or anywhere else. It’s past time for the United States to make a plan to get off fossil fuels altogether and this report provides a road map for policy makers to do just that, providing critical information to ensure sustainable communities and a healthy planet for generations to come.” “To make the most impact on climate change we need to stop all oil, coal, and gas expansion, massively accelerate the growth of renewable energy, and support workers with a just transition to a sustainability-based economy and climate-impacted communities with a just recovery from extreme weather. To make this a reality, we have to hold corporate polluters and political leaders accountable for their role in putting us in harm’s way. Without stopping oil, coal, and gas expansion as soon as possible, though, we won’t get anywhere close to where we need to be to stave off the worst of climate change,” said Janet Redman, Greenpeace USA Climate and Energy Director. “Right now, we’re on a sinking boat, and instead of just scooping water out, we must take immediate action to patch the hole where it’s gushing in,” said Patrick McCully, Climate and Energy Program Director at Rainforest Action Network. “This means we must put a full-stop to fossil fuel expansion, or we all sink into climate chaos. U.S. policymakers – as well as the private sector, like the Wall Street banks that are funding this extraction – must facilitate phasing out extraction while phasing in an equitable transition to renewable energy that supports communities and workers.” “This latest report adds even more urgency to the need for a just transition off of fossil fuels to a renewable energy economy. To prevent the worst impacts of climate change, we must keep oil, coal, and gas in the ground,” said May Boeve, Executive Director, 350.org. “It’s time for public officials at every level to follow the lead of communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis and support bold climate policy.”  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


tass--2019-12-02--Scientists study oil products pollution on Franz Josef Land

ARKHANGELSK, December 2. /TASS/. Specialists of the Russian Arctic Nature Park jointly with the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geography began the Clean Arctic project to analyze the effect of oil products’ pollution on soils, vegetation and the ecosystem’s other components on the Franz Josef Land Archipelago. The project will continue for three years, the national park’s Director Alexander Kirilov told TASS.  "We’ve begun the Clean Arctic project on Franz Josef Land, which will continue for three years," he said. "Scientists will analyze distribution of oil products in the seasonal melt layer in the Arctic."  "Researchers will see how much oil products affect components of the ecosystem in high latitudes," he continued. "The results will be applied to plan further revegetation of those territories."  Cleaning effort on Franz Josef Land has been underway since 2012, and between 2012 and 2017 more than 45,000 tonnes of waste was removed from the archipelago. Cleaning works have been practically finalized on the Alexandra Land, the Hooker, Heiss and Graham Bell Islands, and cleaning work should yet be carried out on the Rudolf and Hofmann Islands.  "Polluted areas still remain in places, where fuel used to be stored <...> and thus quite many oil products still remain in the soil," the Clean Arctic project’s leader, geologist Dmitry Kryukov noted.  As part of the project, specialists will take soil samples and compare them with "clean" areas. "Thus, the studies will let us see how the environment may change under the effect of such pollutants," Alexander Dobryansky of the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geography commented. The first samples have been taken on the Alexandra Land.  Conditions on the islands, where the cleaning took place, are different, and thus specialists used different methods to revegetate the soils. The studies will also show how effective the chosen methods were and what impact they have on the ecosystem.  Results of the studies on the Arctic islands will serve as an input into remote analysis of pollution, including by radar imaging. It is very hard to receive good pictures of the high-latitudinal Arctic from satellites as the territory practically always is under layers of clouds, the expert said.  "When we study the territory, we are gaining references in order to use space imaging to decipher the objects we need: pollution and structure of landscapes," he explained. "But in order to use radar imaging, which works regardless of clouds, we need to have a database of spectral images in different shooting ranges."  "Sets of references and comparison with how objects are represented in optical images will be used to develop a method of decoding radar imaging for the high-Arctic conditions," he added.  This method could be employed both on Franz Josef Land’s islands and on other islands as well as on the mainland with similar conditions: for example, on Novaya Zemlya and Severnaya Zemlya archipelagoes.  "The technologies could be used practically along the entire northern shore of continental Russia," Dobryansky pointed out. "In the Lena’s estuary in Yakutia, for example, there is still lots of environmental damage. The work there is supported financially by the Rosneft company."  The Russian Arctic National Park is Russia’s northernmost and biggest nature reserve, which covers an area of 8.8 million hectares. It was established on June 15, 2009. The Park includes a northern part of the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago’s Severny Island and the entire Franz Josef Land Archipelago.


thedenverpost--2019-04-22--EPA Colorado target oil and gas company HighPoint in federal court accusing company of failing to

EPA, Colorado target oil and gas company HighPoint in federal court, accusing company of failing to control air pollution at storage tanks

Environmental Protection Agency and Colorado attorneys have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking millions in damages and a court order to stop polluting against an oil and gas company they accuse of violating requirements to minimize toxic emissions from storage tanks.  Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment air pollution control inspectors equipped with infrared cameras allegedly detected the emissions at multiple clusters of storage tanks.  The 27-page lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court accuses the HighPoint Operating Corporation of failing to control volatile organic compounds (VOCs), precursors of ozone smog, as well as benzene, toluene, xylene and other pollutants identified under the Clean Air Act as hazardous.  Storage tanks at more than a dozen sites north of Denver in Adams and Weld counties — including many that HighPoint’s predecessor the Bill Barrett Corporation had certified to the CDPHE as “controlled” — have emitted excessive pollutants since April 2014, according to the lawsuit.  This happened in a Front Range area where air quality for years has flunked federal air quality health standards, worsening the problem, the EPA and state attorneys said. HighPoint failed to design, run and maintain pollution control systems as required by the state to minimize leakage of the volatile organic and other chemicals to the maximum extent “practicable,” the attorneys said.  “HighPoint’s failure to comply with these requirements has resulted in excess VOC emissions, a precursor to ground-level ozone. … HighPoint’s unlawful emissions of VOC into the atmosphere contribute to this exceedance of the ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) in this area,” the lawsuit says.  The EPA and CDPHE have asked a federal judge to block HighPoint from further violations of Colorado regulations, order action to fix and offset harm to public health and the environment, and assess civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for violations between January 2009 and November 2015 and up to $97,229 per day for violations after November 2015.  Colorado’s oil and gas industry inspection program, relying on nine CDPHE air pollution control inspectors equipped with infrared cameras, is designed to spur quick compliance. When inspectors detect leaks, they notify companies that same day. Companies are required to initiate fixes within five days, unless they fill out forms justifying delays. But inspections also can reveal violations of state rules and lead eventually to imposition of penalties.  The inspectors drop in unannounced at about 2,000 sites a year and aim the infrared devices at storage tanks, flares and other equipment to determine whether hydrocarbons are leaking.  They can’t get to every site. Oil and gas companies have drilled more than 53,000 wells statewide, producing a record 177 million barrels of oil last year. Colorado rules require controls to minimize pollution. While the EPA provides oversight, state officials also have issued companies permits required under the federal Clean Air Act at roughly 11,000 sites — permits that set limits on pollution.  During the early stages of production — when companies typically drill and conduct hydraulic fracturing to stimulate production — state inspectors let companies produce for 90 days without the required permits and generally do not visit sites unless they receive a specific compliant, relying on a controversial 27-year-old state exemption. However, CDPHE officials — spurred by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette and the environmental advocacy group WildEarth Guardians — are reviewing the legality of that exemption.  Gov. Jared Polis has signaled intentions to reduce pollution. Tougher enforcement, including the air pollution inspections, has emerged as an option as he and state lawmakers re-focus state oversight of the industry. The latest CDPHE data show that inspectors in 2013 detected leaks at 28 percent of the sites they visited. In 2018, records show leaks were detected at 13 percent of sites visited.


thedenverpost--2019-07-30--Colorado proposes new controls on oil and gas industry in effort to combat air pollution

Colorado health officials on Monday proposed a ratcheting of controls on the oil and gas industry to reduce air pollution — aiming to comply with federal ozone limits, obey lawmakers who ordered a cleanup and sync the state with efforts to contain climate change.  The measures that officials with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment unveiled would broaden and strengthen existing regulations. They include:  “We’re going to reduce statewide emissions by 80% by 2030,” John Putnam, the state health department’s environmental programs director, told the 70 or so participants at a public meeting in Denver on Monday.  “We’re still trying to figure out exactly how to get there. We cannot do it without regulating this oil and gas sector,” Putnam said.  Garry Kaufman, director of the state’s air pollution control division, presented the proposed new controls at the first of four public “stakeholder” meetings — ahead of formal Air Quality Control Commission hearings this fall.  These measures would take effect starting in 2020, and mark a first step toward the aggressive action Gov. Jared Polis has promised to clean up pollution in a state where air quality increasingly piques public rage.  Industry attorneys watched and listened Monday, saying they’ll review the proposed measures before weighing in during upcoming hearings.  “This is the first time we’ve seen some of these,” said Andrew Casper, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association’s director of legal and regulatory affairs. “It looks pretty sweeping and extreme.”  State data shows that the oil and gas industry stands out as the main source of the volatile organic compounds (172 tons per day) and of the nitrogen oxides (49 tons per day) that, mixing in sunlight, worsen ozone air pollution.  Colorado for years has violated federal health standards for ozone and faces a legally required federal imposition of stricter controls. While the state data shows that volatile organic compounds from the oil and gas industry decreased between 2011 and 2017, the levels of nitrogen oxides have increased as oil and gas production surged in recent years.  Colorado health officials repeatedly acknowledged at Monday’s meeting that there’s too much pollution, yet faced a barrage from residents demanding more — including a moratorium on the regularly issued permits that allow new oil and gas drilling.  Activist Leslie Weise, from Niwot, pointed to recent independent scientific studies showing buildups of cancer-causing benzene and other industry pollution near homes.  “There’s not a day I don’t have concerns about inhaling carcinogenic emissions from Weld County,” Weise said.  Retired Denver public works employee Gary Norton, 73, pointed to Colorado’s emergence over the past decade as a leading oil and gas producer — worsening the global warming that nations of the world have resolved to contain.  “We need to think about how we’ll be doing our part,” Norton said. “All mankind has to reduce” reliance on fossil fuels which, when burned, worsen warming, he said.  Environment advocates welcomed the state health department’s proposals, but argued that Colorado lawmakers, in Senate Bill 181, passed last winter, authorized a tougher approach.  The measures unveiled Monday reflect rising concern over Colorado’s failure to meet the current federal limit for ozone — 70 parts per billion. Air monitors along the Front Range show levels exceeding 75 parts per billion, and state health officials regularly issue health alerts due to elevated ozone — which worsens respiratory health problems, hitting children and the elderly the hardest.  New measures will be developed in concert with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which also is planning “rule-makings” to reflect new state priorities, Kaufman said.  “This is a very compelling package of ways to reduce emissions,” he said. “The goal of all of this is to protect public health and the environment.”  Future public meetings are scheduled in September — one in Broomfield and another in Grand Junction. State air officials, who deploy a team of 11 inspectors to visit around 2,000 sites a year to verify company compliance, defended their measures as consistent with SB 181 and other state laws.  “We are moving forward to protect public health,” Kaufman said. “We were not told to shut down the industry. We were not told to issue a moratorium. We were told to reduce emissions. We are going to see a dramatic decline in emissions from these facilities. That, in turn, is going to protect public health and the environment.”


chicagosuntimes--2019-03-11--Blacks Hispanics breathe in far more deadly air pollution than they makestudy

Blacks, Hispanics breathe in far more deadly air pollution than they make:study

African-Americans and Hispanics breathe in far more deadly air pollution than they are responsible for making, a new study said.  A study looked at who is exposed to fine particle pollution — responsible for about 100,000 American deaths a year — and how much different races are responsible for the pollution based on their buying, driving and living habits.  Scientists calculate that Hispanics on average breathe in 63 percent more of the pollution that leads to heart and breathing deaths than they make. For African-Americans the figure is 56 percent, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  On the other hand, non-Hispanic whites on average are exposed to 17 percent less air pollution than they make.  “Even though minorities are contributing less to the overall problem of air pollution, they are affected by it more,” said study co-author Jason Hill, a biosystems engineering professor at the University of Minnesota who is white. “Is it fair (that) I create more pollution and somebody else is disproportionately affected by it?”  This pollution comes from gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and other places that then solidify into fine invisible particles small enough to pass through lungs and into bloodstreams. These particles, more than 25 times smaller than the width of a human hair, pose the greatest risk to people’s health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says.  While other studies have shown minorities living with more pollution, this study is one of the first to combine buying habits and exposure into one calculation of inequity, Hill said.  Hill and colleagues looked at pollution from highways, coal-fired power plants, hog farms and other sources.  They then looked in a large scale at who is driving more, buying more goods and food, spending more on property and using more electricity, then traced those purchases to end users.  “On average whites tend to consume more than minorities. It’s because of wealth,” Hill said. “It’s largely how much you buy, not buying different things.”  Of 103,000 particle pollution deaths a year, 83,000 can be traced to the activities of people in the United States — not government and not goods exported elsewhere, the study said   Several outside experts praised the research.  “These findings confirm what most grassroots environmental justice leaders have known for decades, ‘whites are dumping their pollution on poor people and people of color’,” said Texas Southern University public affairs professor Robert Bullard, who was not part of the research. Bullard, often called the father of environmental justice , is African-American.  Bullard said his and other past research shows that African-Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to live where industrial pollution is highest, with people of color overrepresented near Superfund sites and oil refineries.  He said there are far more mostly minority schools within 500 feet of major highways than mostly white schools.  “Being able to quantify the inequity is a key step toward addressing and reducing inequity,” said Christopher Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, who is white and not part of the research.  One bright spot is that in recent decades the air has been getting cleaner in general, Hill said. However, his study stopped in 2015 and EPA data shows an uptick in fine particle pollution in 2017. But even with the cleaner air, it is still inequitable, Hill said.


theguardianuk--2019-01-29--The river is dying the vast ecological cost of Brazils mining disasters

'The river is dying': the vast ecological cost of Brazil's mining disasters

The Brazilian government has been urged to step up punishments for environmental crimes after the deadliest mining disaster in decades.  The torrent of mud and iron ore tailings that engulfed the community of Brumadinho on Friday continues to inflict a toll on residents, river systems and freshwater species.  Rescue teams had by Monday recovered 60 bodies near the site, which is operated by Vale, one of the world’s biggest mining companies, but hundreds of people are still missing. Many were eating lunch or resting in a hotel when the tailings dam collapsed and swept them away in a tide of orange sludge.  It is the second such calamity to strike a Vale facility in the state of Minas Gerais in less than four years. In 2015, 19 people were killed when a tailings dam burst at an iron ore mine in Mariana that the Brazilian company co-owned with the London-listed BHP Group.  The amount of slurry this time is 75% lower, at 13 million cubic metres, but now, as then, the ecological damage is spreading far beyond the immediate area and could potentially persist for many years with grave consequences for local communities, wildlife and the national economy.  Over the weekend, TV and social networks were filled with images of emergency workers in helicopters trying to pull people out of the mud. Now many posts have switched to the impact on fish, frogs and other freshwater species.  “Rio Paraopeba has started to die,” noted one grim tweet with a video clip of oxygen-deprived fish leaping out of the turbid water and flapping their last on the land.  The level of toxicity in the tailings is not yet clear, but iron oxide can choke river sand and poison the surrounding vegetation. It can also compact the soil, preventing new growth of plants on land. Three years after the previous disaster, water from the affected Doce River is still legally unfit for human consumption in 90% of monitoring stations.  A second and bigger impact is the amplification by previous manmade environmental problems. The torrent of water stirred up the heavy metals buried in the sediment on the bottom of the river. This is a huge problem in the state of Minas Gerais, which has a long history of poorly regulated resource extraction, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which is working on a series of reports on the ecological impact of the previous tailings dam collapse in Mariana.  The immediate threat is to the 280km (174 miles) of Paraopeba River. Vale insists the problem will not spread to the São Francisco basin, but conservationists remain concerned. In this region, 64% of fish species are found nowhere else on Earth, according to the IUCN. Even before the contamination, 10% were already classified as vulnerable, including Simpsonichthys picturatus and Brycon orthotaenia. January is the end of the spawning season, which means the deluge affected fry and small fish in important species for fisheries, such as croakers, curimbatás and surubins.  The slurry is expected to reach the hydropower plant at Retiro Baixo by Thursday, where the authorities hope it can be controlled in the reservoir without spreading down to the estuary and into the ocean, as happened in the case of the Mariana disaster. Hydropower generation and water supplies are likely to be affected for years.  The costs have yet to be calculated. After the previous calamity, Vale and Billiton paid $1bn into land and river recuperation efforts and more in an out-of-court settlement to affected communities. Fishing is still prohibited so stocks can recover and a dam remains disrupted. A separate lawsuit in now under way in UK courts.  Campaigners say it is essential to tighten regulations and punish those involved. “Good environmental regulation isn’t about adding costs to development, it’s about safeguarding people and avoiding massive clean-up costs like the ones we are now seeing,” said Stewart Maginnis, the director of the nature-based solutions group in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.  Part of the problem is short-termism. A safer alternative to tailings dams is dry stacking of mining waste. This process – which removes water from the slurry so it can be stored in a stable condition – has been used successfully in many other countries. In Brazil, a 2016 test of dry stacking in Pau Branco iron-ore mine found it was safer, better for water-recycling and required less monitoring and maintenance. Over the 20-year life of a mine, it was also far more cost-efficient. But the extra initial investment of $5-$10m appears to have put off many Brazilian mine owners, who are more used to taking advantage of the country’s abundant rivers.  Brazil has the most abundant water resources in the world, but they are tapped with often reckless abandon and inadequate regulation. Less than one in five of the country’s 24,092 dams come under the supervision of the 2010 dam safety law, 42 are unauthorised and 570 have no responsible operator, according to the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. With a mere 154 inspectors for such a vast country, only 3% of Brazil’s dams were inspected last year, it said.  The problems date back decades, but the risks look set to grow. The new administration of the president, Jair Bolsonaro, has neutered the environment ministry and pledged to ease the licensing system for new projects.  Despite the latest calamity, Augusto Heleno, the head of the national security office, insisted the fast-track approval process would go ahead. “Making the process more flexible means having very strict rules, but allowing certain works that depend on licensing to happen. It does not mean loosening environmental licensing. On the contrary, licensing has to be done well, but it can not be delayed without fair grounds,” he said.  Campaigners say this should now be unthinkable. “It would be offensive to victims of Mariana and Brumadinho if they fulfil that promise,” said Carlos Rittl, who heads the Climate Observatory umbrella group of environmental NGOs.  Public fury is forcing some ministers to shift rhetorical tack. “At this moment, what we need is to make a regulation that ensures, firstly, that best dam practices are implemented, while economic questions stay in second place,” environment minister Ricardo Salles told local TV on Monday.  Environmental crimes are often punished with small fines that often go unpaid. As a result, campaigners say transgressions build into “time-bombs” that can explode, as was the case in Brumadinho. To avoid this, they say those responsible should be imprisoned.  “This cannot be called an ‘accident’ under any circumstances,” said Malu Ribeiro, the founder of the NGO SOS Mata Atlantica. “Such environmental crimes should be punished with the legal rigour that society expects.”  Vale’s chief executive, Fabio Schvartsman, said in a television interview on Sunday that he did everything the law required. “I’m not a mining technician,” he said. “I followed the technicians’ advice and you see what happened. It didn’t work. We are 100% within all the standards, and that didn’t do it.”  Police have so far arrested five people, including three mining staff.  “We have to investigate and punish, but really punish,” Brazil’s vice-president Hamilton Mourão told reporters. “We have to preserve our planet in every possible way, because if not we’ll have to live on Mars.”

Jonathan Watts Global environment editor


globalresearch--2019-12-29--The Key to the Environmental Crisis Is Beneath Our Feet

The Green New Deal resolution that was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in February hit a wall in the Senate, where it was called unrealistic and unaffordable. In a Washington Post article titled “The Green New Deal Sets Us Up for Failure. We Need a Better Approach,” former Colorado governor and Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper framed the problem like this:  The resolution sets unachievable goals. We do not yet have the technology needed to reach “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” in 10 years. That’s why many wind and solar companies don’t support it. There is no clean substitute for jet fuel. Electric vehicles are growing quickly, yet are still in their infancy. Manufacturing industries such as steel and chemicals, which account for almost as much carbon emissions as transportation, are even harder to decarbonize. Amid this technological innovation, we need to ensure that energy is not only clean but also affordable. Millions of Americans struggle with “energy poverty.” Too often, low-income Americans must choose between paying for medicine and having their heat shut off. … If climate change policy becomes synonymous in the U.S. psyche with higher utility bills, rising taxes and lost jobs, we will have missed our shot.  The problem may be that a transition to 100% renewables is the wrong target. Reversing climate change need not mean emptying our pockets and tightening our belts. It is possible to sequester carbon and restore our collapsing ecosystem using the financial resources we already have, and it can be done while at the same time improving the quality of our food, water, air and general health.  The Larger Problem – and the Solution – Is in the Soil  Contrary to popular belief, the biggest environmental polluters are not big fossil fuel companies. They are big agribusiness and factory farming, with six powerful food industry giants – Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Dean Foods, Dow AgroSciences, Tyson and Monsanto (now merged with Bayer) – playing a major role. Oil-dependent farming, industrial livestock operations, the clearing of carbon-storing fields and forests, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the combustion of fuel to process and distribute food are estimated to be responsible for as much as one-half of human-caused pollution. Climate change, while partly a consequence of the excessive relocation of carbon and other elements from the earth into the atmosphere, is more fundamentally just one symptom of overall ecosystem distress from centuries of over-tilling, over-grazing, over-burning, over-hunting, over-fishing and deforestation.  Big Ag’s toxin-laden, nutrient-poor food is also a major contributor to the U.S. obesity epidemic and many other diseases. Yet these are the industries getting the largest subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, to the tune of more than $20 billion annually. We don’t hear about this for the same reason that they get the subsidies – they have massively funded lobbies capable of bribing their way into special treatment.  The story we do hear, as Judith Schwartz observes in The Guardian, is, “Climate change is global warming caused by too much CO in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. We stop climate change by making the transition to renewable energy.” Schwartz does not discount this part of the story but points to several problems with it:  But that hasn’t stopped investors, who see the climate crisis as simply another profit opportunity. According to a study by Morgan Stanley analysts reported in Forbes in October, halting global warming and reducing net carbon emissions to zero would take an investment of $50 trillion over the next three decades, including $14 trillion for renewables; $11 trillion to build the factories, batteries and infrastructure necessary for a widespread switch to electric vehicles; $2.5 trillion for carbon capture and storage; $20 trillion to provide clean hydrogen fuel for power, cars and other industries, and $2.7 trillion for biofuels. The article goes on to highlight the investment opportunities presented by these challenges by recommending various big companies expected to lead the transition, including Exxon, Chevron, BP, General Electric, Shell and similar corporate giants – many of them the very companies blamed by Green New Deal advocates for the crisis.  There is a much cheaper and faster way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere that doesn’t rely on these corporate giants to transition us to 100% renewables. Additionally, it can be done while at the same time reducing the chronic diseases that impose an even heavier cost on citizens and governments. Our most powerful partner is nature itself, which over hundreds of millions of years has evolved the most efficient carbon sequestration system on the planet. As David Perry writes on the World Economic Forum website:  Perry observes that before farmland was cultivated, it had soil carbon levels of from 3% to 7%. Today, those levels are roughly 1% carbon. If every acre of farmland globally were returned to a soil carbon level of just 3%, 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere and stored in the soil – equal to the amount of carbon that has been drawn into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago. The size of the potential solution matches the size of the problem.  So how can we increase the carbon content of soil? Through “regenerative” farming practices, says Perry, including planting cover crops, no-till farming, rotating crops, reducing chemicals and fertilizers, and managed grazing (combining trees, forage plants and livestock together as an integrated system, a technique called “silvopasture”). These practices have been demonstrated to drive carbon into the soil and keep it there, resulting in carbon-enriched soils that are healthier and more resilient to extreme weather conditions and show improved water permeability, preventing the rainwater runoff that contributes to rising sea levels and rising temperatures. Evaporation from degraded, exposed soil has been shown to cause 1,600% more heat annually than all the world’s powerhouses combined. Regenerative farming methods also produce increased microbial diversity, higher yields, reduced input requirements, more nutritious harvests and increased farm profits.  These highly favorable results were confirmed by Paul Hawken and his team in the project that was the subject of his best-selling 2016 book, “Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming.” The project involved evaluating the 100 most promising solutions to the environmental crisis for cost and effectiveness. The results surprised the researchers themselves. The best-performing sector was not “Transport” or “Materials” or “Buildings and Cities” or even “Electricity Generation.” It was the sector called “Food,” including how we grow our food, market it and use it. Of the top 30 solutions, 12 were various forms of regenerative agriculture, including silvopasture, tropical staple trees, conservation agriculture, tree intercropping, managed grazing, farmland restoration and multistrata agroforestry.  How to Fund It All  If regenerative farming increases farmers’ bottom lines, why aren’t they already doing it? For one thing, the benefits of the approach are not well known. But even if they were, farmers would have a hard time making the switch. As noted in a Rolling Stone article titled “How Big Agriculture Is Preventing Farmers From Combating the Climate Crisis”:  Farmers are locked into a system that is destroying their farmlands and the planet, because a handful of giant agribusinesses have captured Congress and the regulators. One proposed solution is to transfer the $20 billion in subsidies that now go mainly to Big Ag into a fund to compensate small farmers who transition to regenerative practices. We also need to enforce the antitrust laws and break up the biggest agribusinesses, something for which legislation is now pending in Congress.  At the grassroots level, we can vote with our pocketbooks by demanding truly nutritious foods. New technology is in development that can help with this grassroots approach by validating how nutrient-dense our foods really are. One such device, developed by Dan Kittredge and team, is a hand-held consumer spectrometer called a Bionutrient Meter, which tests nutrient density at point of purchase. The goal is to bring transparency to the marketplace, empowering consumers to choose their foods based on demonstrated nutrient quality, providing economic incentives to growers and grocers to drive regenerative practices across the system. Other new technology measures nutrient density in the soil, allowing farmers to be compensated in proportion to their verified success in carbon sequestration and soil regeneration.  Granted, $20 billion is unlikely to be enough to finance the critically needed transition from destructive to regenerative agriculture, but Congress can supplement this fund by tapping the deep pocket of the central bank. In the last decade, the Fed has demonstrated that its pool of financial liquidity is potentially limitless, but the chief beneficiaries of its largess have been big banks and their wealthy clients. We need a form of quantitative easing that actually serves the local productive economy. That might require modifying the Federal Reserve Act, but Congress has modified it before. The only real limit on new money creation is consumer price inflation, and there is room for a great deal more money to be pumped into the productive local economy before that ceiling is hit than is circulating in it now. For a detailed analysis of this issue, see my earlier articles here and here and latest book, “Banking on the People.”  The bottom line is that saving the planet from environmental destruction is not only achievable, but that by focusing on regenerative agriculture and tapping up the central bank for funding, the climate crisis can be addressed without raising taxes and while restoring our collective health.  Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  This article was first posted on Truthdig. com.  Ellen Brown chairs the Public Banking Institute and has written thirteen books, including her latest, Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.


theindependent--2019-04-08--Brazilaposs Bolsonaro plans to axe environmental panel that protects Amazon rainforest

Brazil's Bolsonaro plans to axe environmental panel that protects Amazon rainforest

Jair Bolsonaro’s administration is considering axing an independent panel for Brazil’s environmental policy in a move that activists warn could lead to increased deforestation, documents have revealed.  Brazil’s president proposed creating a “government council” of political appointees to replace the National Council of the Environment (known as Conama), which has almost 100 members, including representatives of independent environmental and business groups.  Conama helps protect the 60 per cent of the Amazon rainforest that is in Brazil, which scientists see as crucial for efforts to slow global warming.  The new body, proposed in a policy roadmap drafted by Mr Bolsonaro’s transition team, would consist of five presidential appointees and environment minister Ricardo Salles – one of the authors of the plan.  The documents, first published by the Brazilian Climate Observatory environmental group, were obtained and verified by the Associated Press.  Brazil’s Environment Ministry did not reply to a request for comment.  Part of the transition plan has already come into force. The country’s forestry service, aimed at promoting “knowledge, sustainable use and widening of forestry coverage,” was transferred to the agriculture ministry on Mr Bolsonaro’s second day in office.  On the same day, the agriculture ministry was given the power to determine the limits of indigenous lands, rather than Brazil’s official indigenous rights agency.  As a congressman and candidate, Mr Bolsonaro often questioned the reality of climate change and cast environmental groups as foreign-influenced meddlers restraining Brazil’s economic growth by holding back mining and agriculture.  His stance has similarities to the views of Donald Trump, who before taking office described the US Environmental Protection Agency as a “disgrace” that largely should be dismantled.  The authors of Mr Bolsonaro’s transition plan say Conama is a “confusing” body that “acts emotionally, without due technique, being subjected to ideological interference”.  In another transition team document, lawyer Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro argues that its decisions have led to “the emission of norms and standards that are far from reality”.  In an interview shortly after his election, Mr Bolsonaro complained that it could sometimes take a decade to get an environmental licence. “That will not continue,” he said.  While officials have not yet formally proposed the smaller council, there has already been increased friction over Conama. Security guards blocked alternate members of the council from joining the main meeting at a March session in the capital of Brasilia, breaking a long tradition of wide-open debate in Brazil’s top environmental council.  Carlos Rittl, executive secretary of the Brazilian Climate Observatory, which includes several nonprofit groups, said he believed that chaotic meeting was “more evidence that the plan (for a smaller council) is indeed being implemented”.  “Deforestation ended 2018 on the rise. It is on the rise in 2019, but we haven’t heard a word from the minister about that. We have heard about limiting the access to civil society so we can’t have a fair discussion,” Mr Rittl said.  Former environment minister Rubens Ricupero speculated the new administration may have delayed creating the new council because of public anger over the collapse of a mine dam near the city of Brumadinho in January that killed at least 223 people, with 70 still missing.  Mr Ricupero noted Mr Bolsonaro’s chief of staff suggested closing the environmental ministry during the campaign, but said that the powerful agribusiness lobby was afraid such a move would damage trade and has prevented any such move.  The Bolsonaro transition plan also suggested closing the federal agency that oversees conservation zones, such as national parks and biological reserves, and issues fines for violation of environmental laws there. Many of those penalties are never paid, but several Brazilian agribusiness leaders have complained about them over the years.  Pinheiro Pedro, the transition team lawyer, wrote that the agency should be folded into the Environment Institute, which enforces other environmental legislation and aims to promote the sustainable the use of natural resources. He said the two have “the same objective” and streamlining environmental governance is key to “avoid international interference”.  Mr Rittl, of the Brazilian Climate Observatory, said he believed that change would reduce oversight in key areas by diluting the focus of regulators.  Environmentalists also criticised the language used in the transition documents, though the tone echoes Mr Bolsonaro’s own pronouncements.  The plan says NGOs involved in climate change discussions are “uncontrollable organisms” that need to be stopped so the system is closer to ministerial control. It also contends Brazil’s environmental governance is crafted to give jobs to political appointees, describing that as “a risk to national sovereignty”.  Emilio Bruna, a tropical ecologist focused on the Amazon who is based at the University of Florida, said the transition plan showed the worst fears about Mr Bolsonaro’s presidency were starting to come true.  “Scientists are not only concerned about the government not creating new protected areas, but also the downgrading of existing protections in the rainforest,” he said.  “There was already a culture of impunity, but now it’s being reinforced.”


thetelegraph--2019-07-05--Demand for luxury toilet roll trumping shoppers environmental concerns new analysis shows

Demand for luxury toilet roll trumping shopper's environmental concerns, new analysis shows

The demand for luxury toilet roll is trumping shopper's environmental concerns, as recycled brands are becoming less popular with the public.  The major brands are using far less recycled paper than they did in 2011 amid a growing trend for high quality 'four-ply' toilet roll known for its softness.  Only five of the nine major supermarkets, including Sainsburys and Waitrose, are offering their own-brand recycled toilet paper, analysis from Ethical Consumer magazine found.  In 2011, just under 30% of total fibre used by Kimberly-Clark, one of the biggest suppliers of toilet tissue worldwide, was from recycled fibre, but by 2017 this figure had fallen to 23.5%.  It comes as experts warn that the large-scale use of virgin paper in the production of “luxury” quilted toilet roll is heavily contributing to deforestation rates and destroying animal habitats.  Alex Crumbie, a researcher for Ethical Consumer, said: “There is no need to cut down forests to make toilet roll, yet this is precisely what is happening.With consumer attention focused on plastic, some of the big brands have slowed and even reversed their use of recycled paper in the toilet rolls they make.”  The UK uses 1.3m tonnes of tissue a year, with the average British consumer getting through 127 rolls every year, according to the Confederation of Paper Industries.


vox--2019-10-31--Paper napkins are expensive and environmentally unsound. Now the industry is trying to save itself.

From a high-rise building in downtown Atlanta, a team of five strategists works around the clock to rescue the paper napkin from extinction. The group, dubbed the “napkin team,” is part of the strategy arm at Georgia-Pacific, a paper manufacturing behemoth that owns a host of napkin, paper towel, toilet paper, and tissue brands. Its mission is to rebuff criticisms of paper napkins as an extra expense or a needless source of environmental waste. And at its center is Lisa Silverboard, who has overseen branding for Georgia-Pacific napkins for eight years.  After holding branding roles at companies like Johnson & Johnson, Silverboard says, “I kind of landed in paper napkins.” But by the time she walked in the door at Georgia-Pacific, the paper napkin was in the throes of a crisis.  Once a mainstay of the American kitchen, paper napkins have rapidly shed market share. Two decades ago, 60 percent of American households regularly purchased paper napkins; today that figure has plummeted to 41 percent, according to Georgia-Pacific statistics.  “Our eating habits are changing,” says Silverboard. “There’s a lot more snacking. There’s a lot more on the go. We hear a lot from consumers that they’re eating more in the car, that they’re having smaller meals, and their needs have changed as it relates to napkins.”  The plunge has been especially precipitous among young consumers. While 61 percent of people aged 65 and older reported using paper napkins every day, just 37 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds answered the same way, according to a report from market research firm Mintel.  Recapturing that youth market might be the only way to ensure a future for the paper napkin. And under the guidance of its “napkin team,” Georgia-Pacific, which owns napkin brands like Vanity Fair, Mardi Gras, and Dixie, is making its last-ditch pivot toward napkins that appeal to young people. Yet to pull in younger consumers, paper napkin makers are taking on the trappings of a longtime enemy — the paper towel — and recruiting celebrities to restore their luster, all in the hope of sparing themselves from going the way of the plastic straw.  This isn’t the first time paper napkins have faced an existential crisis.  When the first paper napkins reached the US at the end of the 19th century, largely as a result of importing decorative paper napkins from Japan, many Americans objected. Accustomed to reusable napkins, they exclaimed, as one New York City newspaper put it, “Paper napkins! Who ever heard of such nonsense! What good are they?”  But paper napkins soon caught on for another reason: They promised, at least superficially, to balance out class distinctions. When cloth napkins were the only game in town, buying single-use napkins had been a measure of wealth — who but the richest could afford to throw out a cloth napkin after each meal? The availability of cheaply available Japanese paper napkins shifted that paradigm. The same newspaper went on to argue that “the introduction of paper napkins” to the poor “will do away with this social stratum.”  Another turning point for the paper napkin occurred in the middle of the 1900s, when the rise of the hamburger facilitated a new paper napkin boom — much to the chagrin of one Pittsburgh writer, who lamented in 1960, “My chief pet peeve against hamburgers, cheeseburgers, lottaburgers, et al is that they have ushered in the horrible paper napkins.”  By the middle of the 20th century, paper napkins were big business, with etiquette writer Emily Post giving disposable napkins cautious approval and a new crop of high-end paper napkin brands, chief among them Vanity Fair, advertising a “superbly soft” and “luxuriously embossed” napkin.  The origins of today’s turn away from paper napkins are complex, but some experts believe that environmental concern is at least a nominal factor. Paper napkins, while certainly not the largest contributor to global waste, are joining the ranks of balloons and plastic straws as casualties of the increasing skepticism of single-use paper and plastic products.  “We’re facing major challenges with things like climate change, plastic pollution, and all other kinds of pollution,” says Simon Lockrey, a sustainability researcher at RMIT University in Melbourne. “The napkin debate is just another one of these issues where we’re starting to reconsider reusable versus disposable options.”  In one report that linked the use of non-recycled tissue products — a moniker that includes paper towels, toilet paper, and paper napkins — to deforestation in Canada, lead author Jennifer Skene argued that abandoning paper napkins as well as similar products “could considerably slow forest degradation.”  It is relatively easy for paper napkins to incorporate recycled paper fibers. The more that paper fibers are recycled, the shorter they become — and because many paper napkins only need short paper fibers, a company could craft napkins from fibers that have already seen five to seven reuses, according to Stanford Magazine.  Every napkin in McDonalds, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Starbucks is made entirely from recycled paper  As a result, many restaurants have vowed to use 100 percent recycled paper napkins. Napkins in McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Starbucks stores, for instance, are made entirely from recycled paper. But while some napkin companies have specialty lines that promise high proportions of recycled content, like Seventh Generation’s 100 percent recycled napkins, other major brands including Vanity Fair, Mardi Gras, and Kleenex offer little to no recycled content at all.  Regarding the lack of recycled paper in Georgia-Pacific napkins, Silverboard notes, “Our fiber is sustainably sourced. We’re using certified wood that is replanted, so it’s not like people are clear-cutting areas.”  And to Georgia-Pacific’s benefit, Rosenberg doesn’t think environmental factors are the main reason younger consumers are abandoning paper napkins. “Recycled fiber by itself isn’t a really big consumer driver,” he says.  In fact, the main culprit for the precipitous decline of paper napkins is not environmental fears but an old foe: the paper towel. As a series of doomsday headlines have warned, consumers — especially young people — have made the simple decision to cut down on their number of purchases by substituting paper towels for paper napkins.  That’s in large part because paper towels are so flexible: They clean spills, wrap up vegetables, and dab lips all in one. “A lot of people have found paper towels to be an acceptable substitute for napkins,” says Silverboard. “They like the absorbency that a paper towel offers. You can fold it and put it next to your plate and it works kind of like a napkin, and that versatility is very appealing to a lot of people.”  Meanwhile, brand-name napkins like Vanity Fair and Mardi Gras are losing their cachet. Increasingly, when people do buy paper napkins, they’re opting for the private-label napkins — as opposed to name brands — that they can most cheaply find in stores.  ”Consumers don’t care which format they’re using as long as it does the job,” says Jamie Rosenberg, the household products analyst at Mintel. “This value proposition is what Vanity Fair is trying to get back.”  Early in 2018, Georgia-Pacific’s high-end paper napkin brand Vanity Fair rolled out Extra Absorbent, a paper napkin that pitches itself as “part paper towel, part napkin” and that a spokesperson says is designed to have “high appeal among millennials.” The product description for Extra Absorbent notes, “There’s no longer an excuse to use paper towels.”  Rather than compete with the paper towel, the paper napkin has decided to mimic it. And Silverboard notes there’s more on its way: “We have a team that’s working on a whole host of different innovation options.”  To resuscitate the floundering public image of the paper napkin, Georgia-Pacific has attempted to reformulate not just its products but its entire marketing strategy, too.  For one thing, the company recruited a rosé-slinging Amy Sedaris to tape ad campaigns for the new line of Extra Absorbent napkins. On Valentine’s Day 2018, Vanity Fair also partnered with Match.com to launch a marketing campaign, #DateANapkinUser, whose poster features a coiffed white man with a napkin pressed to his lips. The company even commissioned its own study that claimed napkin users are “statistically less likely to have broken up with someone over DM.”  Most recently, after this year’s Oscars, musician John Mayer teamed up with Georgia-Pacific to host his own afterparty for Vanity Fair, the napkin maker — a play on the magazine Vanity Fair’s famed post-Oscars gathering. In the ensuing days, AdAge dubbed Mayer a “napkin influencer.”  In truth, the deck is stacked against paper napkins. Their sworn enemy, the paper towel, is fighting hard against them. While the paper napkin has pivoted to become more like paper towels, the paper towel industry has countered by becoming more like … napkins. Earlier this year, for instance, Brawny released a competing product, called Tear-A-Square, that brings younger consumers paper towels divided into tearable grids.  To Rosenberg, the merging of paper towels and paper napkins is part of a larger trend in the household paper industry. Tissues, napkins, paper towels, and toilet paper “are losing their differentiation,” he says, and steadily collapsing into one mega-product. Just as paper towels are looking more like napkins, toilet paper is getting softer and more tissue-like.  More so than environmental concerns, the shrinking of the paper market comes down to cost. “People in lower-income tiers are more likely to use paper towels as napkins, toilet paper as facial tissue,” says Rosenberg. “It’s cheaper to use paper towels as napkins than to buy napkins.”  “It’s cheaper to use paper towels as napkins than to buy napkins”  Still, this war between paper napkins and paper towels cannot help but feel like an exercise in corporate fatalism. Regardless of which product proves to have the greatest consumer staying power, the same small handful of corporate owners are profiting.  Georgia-Pacific owns three of the seven most popular napkin brands — Dixie, Mardi Gras, and Vanity Fair — according to the Simmons National Consumer Survey. It also owns the paper napkin’s most formidable foe: the paper towel maker Brawny. Likewise, another conglomerate, Kimberly-Clark, lays claim to both the fifth-most popular napkin maker — Kleenex — and its major paper towel competitor, Bounty.  Rosenberg notes that the reason these companies pit their napkins against their paper towels is for market research. Georgia-Pacific might own both Brawny’s Tear-A-Square and Vanity Fair’s Extra Absorbent, but seeing which product is more successful tells the company a lot about the market. “I think it’s really a consumer insights exercise,” he says.  It also doesn’t hurt that the financial risks are small. At least in the case of Georgia-Pacific, all of the profits from paper napkins and paper towels alike are in turn fed on to its corporate owner, Koch Industries, which also controls countless household product brands. Even as these individual companies maneuver against each other, the money is all trickling up to the same place.  Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


theguardianuk--2019-10-06--Its an enormous act of ecological vandalism the ancient forests under threat from HS2

‘It’s an enormous act of ecological vandalism’: the ancient forests under threat from HS2

The orange lifebuoys that pop up at random points in the countryside are the first sign of what the naturalist Chris Packham calls the biggest deforestation project in Britain since the first world war. They hang from posts beside shallow, newly dug ponds, surrounded by neat rows of spindly saplings.  These new landscapes are “compensation” for the partial destruction of 63 ancient woods that stand in the intended path of HS2, the high-speed rail line being carved through the countryside between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. (According to the Woodland Trust, 108 ancient woods are in the frame, when you also count those indirectly affected.) The idea is that, when the woods are felled after centuries of quiet growth, their wildlife, from great-crested newts to woodcock, may seek refuge in these new habitats.  Although HS2 has come under review, after its projected cost rose to £88bn (with the possibility it could be cancelled), “enabling” work for the construction effort continues. According to HS2 Ltd, the government-funded company building the line, it will destroy only a tiny fraction of England’s 52,000 ancient woodlands – with 80% of “affected” woodlands left intact as the new line arrows through them. There will be generous compensation, it claims. But can ancient woods be replaced? And what do the people living beside these imperilled old woods think?  South Cubbington wood in Warwickshire, on a hill above the scenic River Leam, has been fenced off in preparation for the chainsawing of old oaks and wild service trees. A deep cutting wider than a motorway will be carved through it. Beside the wood, a 250-year-old pear tree is surrounded by plastic fencing and awaiting execution. It was crowned England’s “tree of the year” in 2015. Now, dumper trucks thunder past.  “It breaks my heart seeing all this,” says one local resident, Elaine Barker. “The wildlife won’t have the freedom to go from wood to meadow to river because they’ll have a great big concrete line in front of them. And neither will we. We live in Leamington Spa, one of the most polluted towns in Britain, and I have asthmatic children. These woods are a sanctuary.”  South Cubbington is cherished by local people, who tramp its tracks with their dogs, and admire carpets of anemones and bluebells in spring. Breathe the air, says a group of Cubbington residents when we enter the woods: it smells cool, damp, mushroomy. Just 2% of Britain is ancient woodland (older than 400 years, in England and Wales). It often features old trees, dead wood (a habitat for rare beetles) and flora such as native bluebells. But the key, say ecologists, is its soils – even where ancient woodland has been replanted with newer trees, its soil is still undisturbed, chemical-free and rich in fungi, micro-organisms and the seeds of future life.  In recent months, despite a continuing review by the retired engineer Douglas Oakervee, HS2 has become increasingly visible to those living near the London-Birmingham route. Roads and footpaths are abruptly closed; rolling countryside is studded with the orange and yellow of diggers, and fences spring up. Construction tracks are laid down; hedgerows are grubbed up. And people have woken up. A week ago, protesters evaded security around South Cubbington to begin a peaceful protest camp. Barker is heartened. “It’s absolutely lovely to see the whole community coming together and saying: ‘We don’t want this.’”  HS2 Ltd’s plans to minimise woodland destruction appear impressive. It is planting 7m trees and shrubs, creating 3,300 hectares of wildlife habitat – a third greater than there is today. Ecologists say one crucial part of ancient woodland is its (untouched, chemical-free) soil, and so in South Cubbington the forest floor will be dug up and dumped on to new sites. Ironically, the wood’s imminent destruction is because winter is the most wildlife-friendly time to relocate its soil.  But ancient woodland, says Luci Ryan, of the Woodland Trust, is irreplaceable. Every developer threatening ancient woodland (there are 995 examples of development on or beside ancient woodland) claims theirs is just a small slice; a finite resource continues to be eroded. Although the Woodland Trust says no new planting can offset the destruction of such forests, it wants a planting/loss ratio of 30:1. HS2 Ltd has not listed the precise compensation planting for each ancient woodland lost. “If we’re being really generous,” says Ryan, “the planting ratio is about six hectares to every one lost” for phase one of the project (London to Birmingham). “People say: ‘It’s just trees, and people are losing homes and businesses,’ but the problem is the way it was designed – if HS2 Ltd had considered the ancient woods in the beginning we wouldn’t be seen as unreasonable.”  The fragmentation caused by the line slicing through ancient woods is highlighted by Mike Pollard of Banbury Ornithological Society, which owns Glyn Davies wood in Northamptonshire. “We don’t have much ancient woodland in this area; only little pockets of it survive,” he says as he shows me its 300-year-old oaks and the skeletons of last spring’s bluebells (another sign of ancient woodland). “There’s all this deadwood, old trees, two species of elm; it’s a really good sample of ancient woodland.” Everyone knows ancient trees can’t move, but even mobile bird species will be affected, Pollard says. The declining marsh tit needs woodland with a high canopy of tall trees. It will take 40 years before HS2’s compensation woods are big enough for it.  Further up the line, the largest fragment of ancient woodland to be destroyed by HS2 is at Whitmore in Staffordshire. This is “phase 2a” (Birmingham to Crewe), and work has not yet begun. Whitmore Wood’s owner, Edward Cavenagh-Mainwaring, a thoughtful dairy farmer, points to where the line will “punch into the wood” and through its hidden valleys, where fallow deer run. The line will take one-third of the wood as it cuts through Cavenagh-Mainwaring’s farm, taking up to 100 of his 385 hectares during construction. He tries to be positive and has had some constructive negotiations. “HS2 have been comparatively good and communicative. We took the decision to work with them. They responded, and we believe our outcome is better,” he says. For instance, the height of a tunnel under the line has been raised so that he and his neighbour can get their farm machinery through it.  But it’s not just the wood, the hedges or wetlands he has created for wildlife that will be irrevocably changed. “We have to look after the soil – that’s your legacy,” he says. “We’re into the soil and wildlife, and I feel quite annoyed that this bloody thing is coming right through the middle of us. I get compensated for that, but I don’t think it deals with the mental scarring this sort of project has. We live for this land, and we watch the work we have done on it being ’dozed out of the way. For me, the biggest impact of HS2 is on my head. It’s a mental-health thing.”  South of Sheffield, Mark Hewitt surveys the gently curving green horizon of Nor wood. Hewitt, a farmer, entrepreneur and God-fearing Yorkshireman, likes this view so much that he is building a church here, where he will be buried.  “The view is absolutely astounding. For a monstrosity to go through here, there must be something wrong with the country. They want their heads looking at!” he says. “I hope this church protects the wood. Some views are given to you. You don’t make views like that. God made that. The last thing I will do is stop this train going through this wood.”  Hewitt is the kind of larger-than-life character you would not bet against. His childhood was spent in the woods here in Killamarsh. “We lived in this wood, I can show you every rabbit hole, every nook and cranny. This was our back yard. It touches a lot of people’s hearts in Killamarsh,” he says. “It’s beautiful, this wood. There are buzzards nesting here … tawny owls, long-eared owls, crossbills, barn owls, two species of deer … everything.”  After making money in farming, plant hire and fishing lakes, Hewitt bought the wood and extended it, planting 40,000 trees and digging ponds. It’s not nimbyism, he says. “If I didn’t live here, my opinion would be exactly the same. I’m just trying to protect what’s left. No money in the world can buy this wood. It belongs to my village, and I’m proud of it. Ask our Queen what she thinks about them destroying her land. She is welcome to visit here. It is her land, and they are ruining it.”  For people in Cubbington, hope arrived when HS2 abruptly changed tack last week and announced there would be no chainsawing of ancient trees in South Cubbington or 10 other ancient woodland until the new year. This reprieve came after lawyers for Chris Packham challenged the government on the legality of chainsawing trees while the whole project is under review.  Packham, who also organised “Euston, we have a problem”, a protest at HS2’s London terminus, has eloquently linked HS2 to a wider ecological crisis. “It’s just an enormous act of ecological vandalism at a time when we really should know better,” he told Jonathan Pie (the actor/comedian Tom Walker). “It’s like a light has gone on in one part of our brain telling us that there is a climate and environmental emergency, and we’ve all got to make changes to address this issue, but we haven’t yet turned the other one [light] off; the one that tells us we’ve got to make this short-term progress. Will someone please turn that old light off so that we can bathe in the brightness of a new vision for a better future for ourselves and the planet?”  For Elaine Barker at South Cubbington, the reprieve is a “sigh of relief”, but she fears the HS2 review will endorse “business as usual”. Like Packham, she sees no sign of the gulf closing between a growing awareness of environmental crises and bad stuff continuing to be done on – and to – the ground in Britain. Yet. “The government is just so far removed from what’s going on in the world,” she says. “We can’t just say they shouldn’t be cutting down forests in Brazil. By cutting down trees here, that’s contributing to climate change. Where do we start if we don’t start at home?”


eveningstandard--2019-11-11--SBTV entrepreneur Jamal Edwards tells young Londoners helping the ecosystem is as 'cool' a

SBTV entrepreneur Jamal Edwards tells young Londoners helping the ecosystem is as 'cool' as being in the music industry

Entrepreneur Jamal Edwards has said making garden wildlife sanctuaries is as “cool” as being in the music industry.  The 29-year-old boss of SBTV, who has made millions from his music video empire and helped launched the career of stars including Ed Sheeran, spoke as he joined TV presenter Chris Packham in building a giant “bug hotel” in Manor House.  Edwards grew up in Acton, and spent free time as a child making amateur wildlife films in friends’ gardens.  Handling insects with the Autumnwatch presenter at Woodberry Wetlands reservoir and wildlife oasis, he said: “I used to make loads [of bug hotels] when I was younger, if there were loads of ants around.  “One of the big things is I think lots of people don’t know they can get involved and do little things in their back garden that will help wildlife.  “If there’s an ant’s nest in your garden don’t just trample over it or whatever, make a difference through what you do. It’s important, it’s our ecosystem. People that have been following me for ages know about my wildlife stuff, but a lot found me through music and don’t know, but yeah, they are both cool.”  The National Lottery-funded wetlands project has enabled the area to remain a home for kingfishers, bees and dragonflies in urban north-east London.  At the event the presenter revealed ten top tips created by The Wildlife Trusts, the Woodland Trust, the RSPB that Londoners can follow to help “make a real difference” to wildlife preservation in the capital.  They include putting creating vertical urban gardens on rooftops, putting in a pond if you have a garden - and building a bug hotel.  He told the Standard: “Putting in a pond is the most instantly productive. We don’t want people to think they need the space for a lake though. Even a bucket sunk into the ground will attract an abundance of life.”  Top 10 tips Londoners can follow to help the capital's ecosytem: • Fill your garden with plants: Trees, bushes, climbers, flowers – the more you can fill your space, the better. For maximum effect, choose those that are known to be winners for wildlife, including a sequence of nectar- and pollen-rich flowers that bloom throughout the year for our pollinators. • Create a pond: Even a tiny container pond can attract a whole host of wonderful wildlife. Always think safety first and ensure there are shallow margins or ramps to allow wildlife to get in and out. Include some native pondweed, and some bog plants around the edge, and it should soon burst with life. • Open your garden or balcony as a bird café: Kick off by making your own bird cake or feeders and don’t forget to provide water in a shallow container for drinking and bathing. Clean your bird feeders regularly to help keep your garden birds safe from disease. • Cherish your dead matter: A dead wood or stick pile provides a home for about 20 per cent of Britain’s woodland insects and is food for wood-boring insects. Build these piles somewhere damp and dark to attract insects, toads and newts or find a sunny dry spot and solitary bees may take up residence. Leaf piles and compost heaps also provide valuable cover, and there is a whole host of life that will munch away at it, helping to fuel the garden food chains. • Open up wildlife highways: Cut out little doorways at the base of fences so that hedgehogs, frogs and toads can get from one garden to the next. A 13cm x 13cm hole is ideal. Make sure to ask your neighbours’ permission and get your whole street involved to create an even better mini highway. • Don't hurt the wider world with your gardening: Choose peat-free compost or make your own, limit your carbon footprint and water use, and keep plastic use to a minimum so that your garden benefits the planet as a whole. • Grow your plants in containers to maximise space: For those with a small outdoor space or no garden at all, growing plants in containers and hanging baskets is a great solution for a balcony, porch or windowsill. • Build a bug hotel: Create a multi-storey wildlife hotel that’s full of all sorts of natural materials, providing safe hidey-holes for creatures galore – anything from toads, to solitary bees to bumblebees, and ladybirds to woodlice. • Join a community group in your area: If you live in an urban area, volunteer in a local community project to improve and enhance wildlife in your public spaces. • Plant a tree: Native trees provide food and shelter for local wildlife and a fantastic habitat to support various species. Birds such as greenfinches will love silver birches and feed on the abundant seeds and insects it hosts, and bees will feast on the nectar and pollen provided by alders.


naturalnews--2019-04-17--Past fire control efforts have interfered with the natural ecosystem of forests increasing the risk

Past fire control efforts have interfered with the natural ecosystem of forests, increasing the risk and intensity of wildfires

(Natural News) In recent years, large raging wildfires have increased in quantity and severity, engulfing the western United States. The year 2017 is on pace to be the most catastrophic year yet for wildfires. In Montana, more than 980,000 acres have been lost, as raging fires burn out forest canopies and destroy pristine areas. More than 578,000 acres have burned up in Oregon, more than 422,000 acres have been consumed in California, and nearly 200,000 have been destroyed in Washington. At the height of this year’s chaos, 76 large fires were burning across nine states, wiping out more than 500 homes and 32 businesses. What is to blame for such widespread chaos?  A team of researchers at the University of New Mexico set out to understand the cause and effect scenarios that are exacerbating wildfires in the West. Ironically, one of the biggest factors causing stronger wildfires today is many years’ worth of undiscerning and excessive fire control and suppression efforts.  No one wants to see fire blazing free in the forest, so every effort is made to contain the flames. However, small fires are a natural part of the ecosystem and should be left alone. These small fires clear out dry brush throughout the forests. The more mankind interferes to stop these cyclical, necessary fires, the more we create the conditions that feed much larger forest fires.  No one wants to see industry cutting down forest trees, so environmental protection efforts are put in place to “save the trees.” However, by not properly logging the forests, wildfires have plenty of firewood to build a stronger, all-consuming blaze in the future. Man’s attempt to control the forest and protect the environment has backfired, giving way to large fires that take advantage of dry climate conditions, thickly-wooded forests with heavy brush.  Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: Lab-verified Nascent Iodine solution is a dietary supplement that provides your body with supplemental iodine to help protect your thyroid during radiation exposure. Nuclear accidents such as Fukushima (or nuclear war) can expose your body to radioactive iodine-131, a dangerous radioisotope. Pre-loading your system with stable iodine occupies the iodine receptor sites on your organs, causing your body to naturally expel radioactive iodine you may have been exposed to through air, food, water or milk products. This defensive strategy is recommended by nearly all health authorities, worldwide, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Discover more at this link.  Dan Krofcheck, a post-doctoral fellow in UNM’s Department of Biology, says:  For a long time, there’s been this stigma that fire in the landscape is a bad thing. It makes sense, because fire is a destructive process. But, it’s also an integral part of how these ecosystems evolved and we kind of shut that down through heavy fire suppression activity. The result is that fuel that would have been consumed by frequent fire, builds up and accumulates. Subsequently, when you finally have fire move through an area, after it’s been suppressed for 30, 50, 100 years, you have these massive fires that no longer just consume the understory but they’re actually torching crowns and moving through the tree canopy.  Krofcheck’s team, along with the USDA Forest Service, looked for ways in which forest management can clear underbrush to lessen the contagious nature of forest fires. They conducted forecast simulations using projected climate data taken from the Dinkey Creek Collaborative Landscape Forest Restoration Project area in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. In one test, they thinned the entire area. In a second test, they cleared two-thirds less underbrush than the first test, choosing the most at-risk areas for wildfires. After examining over a thousand simulations, they found that strategic clearing of underbrush from high risk areas reduced fire severity up to 60 percent. “Even though we thinned about two-thirds less of the forest, we saw the exact same treatment outcomes,” said Krofcheck.  This is good news, because thinning an entire forest is unrealistic and expensive. “This research and way of thinking about optimally using your resources, in terms of where you thin, could go a long way in helping these organizations use their dollars most efficiently to achieve their desired outcomes, which is less severe fires,” said UNM Associate Professor Matthew Hurteau.  By examining and pinpointing the best places to thin the underbrush, future forest management teams can help prevent deadly forest fires. Healthy logging of the forest is also an integral part of forest management. Discerning when small burns are an appropriate part of the natural ecosystem burn-off is essential to long term prevention of catastrophic forest fires.


birminghammail--2019-02-04--The heartbreaking true impact of litter on animals in Birmingham

The RSPCA has declared a “war against litter” - as statistics show the heartbreaking impact of people’s rubbish on animals in the West Midlands.  New analysis by the charity has detailed an increase in animals affected by plastic litter - including by becoming entangled in nets, trapped in plastic bags or bottles, or infected through litter-inflicted wounds.  The data shows there were at least 80 incidents in the West Midlands county that involved animals affected by general litter in 2018.  That’s up from the 64 recorded in 2017 and 70 recorded in 2016 - though lower than the 97 in 2015.  However, the incidents involving plastic litter were at a record high of 45.  That compares to 27 recorded cases in 2017, 29 in 2016 and 39 in 2015.  Over the four years the charity recorded 311 incidents of animals being affected by general litter (including non-plastics) in the West Midlands county alone.  The situation in the West Midlands mirrors a national trend when it comes to plastic litter.  The number of animals affected by plastic litter in England and Wales is at a record high, with incidents increasing from 473 in 2015 to 579 in 2018.  That’s an increase of 22 per cent over the period.  Certain animals - particularly those that live in water habitats - are disproportionately affected by plastic litter, according to the charity’s data.  There has been a fourfold rise in seals affected by incidents involving plastic litter, with 28 recorded in 2018 compared to only five in 2015.  Incidents involving geese have also risen, from 37 in 2015 to 70 last year, and swans, from 40 to 48 over the same four-year period.  Despite the rise in animals affected by general and plastic litter, the vast majority of incidents still relate to fishing litter, such as lines and hooks.  Across all species, of the 4,579 incidents in 2018 that involved any type of litter, 3,228 were from angling and 1,351 were general litter.  RSPCA Head of Wildlife, Adam Grogan said: “This shocking rise in plastic litter incidents suggests that plastic is a growing threat to animals.  “Every year, the RSPCA deals with increasing numbers of mammals, birds and reptiles that have become entangled or affected in some way by discarded plastic.  “From seals with deep infected wounds caused by plastic frisbees cutting into their necks, to swans and geese trapped in fishing line or netting, plastic is clearly having an increasing impact on animal welfare.  “Our latest data sadly reflects the wider litter crisis taking place right now across the globe and action is urgently needed. It’s up to every one of us to do our bit in the war against litter.”