World’s First Green Bank – 3 Billion Sterling to Lend to Sustainable Projects

 

green-investment-bank-logo

 

 

 

A new banking consciousness has begun!

As Britain heads towards it’s goal to drastically cut its carbon emissions by 2020, thw world’s first green bank will
use at least 80 percent of its capital to fund the Government’s Green Deal.

According to their website — and fabulously snubbing Canada:

In order to meet this green challenge there are ambitious and legally binding targets which the UK must meet.  These are set out in the Kyoto Protocol, the 2008 Climate Change Act and the Energy Bill of 2012.  Building green infrastructure and financing the projects to support this will be fundamental in meeting the targets including:

  • a reduction in green-house gas emissions of 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050;
  • 15% of all energy consumed generated from green sources by 2020; and
  • ‘reduction in waste’ to landfill.

 

Visit The Banks Website!

 

 

The Learners Are The Teachers: The Barefoot College

Barefoot CollegeSanjit “Bunker” Roy’s Barefoot Architects are creating a better future for over 75,000 children in India. And by extension, the rest of the world.

This democracy movement originator Bunker Roy has offers us another way to learn and share with each other and the planet.

The solar powered Barefoot Colleges scattered through out India are lifting people up faster than you can sign-language “grandmother power”.

 

WATCH Barefoot College VIDEO HERE

Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds.

images-3A survey of thousands of per-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

The study described the dissent as a “vanishingly small proportion” of published research.

“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary,” said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.

Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October.

“There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception,” Cook said in a statement.

The study blamed strenuous lobbying efforts by industry to undermine the science behind climate change for the gap in perception. The resulting confusion has blocked efforts to act on climate change.

The survey was the most ambitious effort to date to demonstrate the broad agreement on the causes of climate change, covering 20 years of academic publications from 1991-2011.

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, an historian at the University of California, San Diego,surveyed published literature, releasing her results in the journal Science. She too came up with a similar finding that 97% of climate scientists agreed on the causes of climate change.

She wrote of the new survey in an email: “It is a nice, independent confirmation, using a somewhat different methodology than I used, that comes to the same result. It also refutes the claim, sometimes made by contrarians, that the consensus has broken down, much less ‘shattered’.”

The Cook survey was broader in its scope, deploying volunteers from the SkepticalScience.com website to review scientific abstracts. The volunteers also asked authors to rate their own views on the causes of climate change, in another departure from Oreskes’s methods.

The authors said the findings could help close the gap between scientific opinion and the public on the causes of climate change, or anthropogenic global warming, and so create favourable conditions for political action on climate.

“The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW [anthropogenic, ie man-made, global warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy,” the study said.

However, Prof Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who studies the forces underlying attitudes towards climate change, disputed the idea that educating the public about the broad scientific agreement on the causes of climate change would have an effect on public opinion – or on the political conditions for climate action.

He said he was doubtful that convincing the public of a scientific consensus on climate change would help advance the prospects for political action. Having elite leaders call for climate action would be far more powerful, he said.

“I don’t think people really want to come around to grips with the fact that climate change is a highly ideological issue and it is not amenable to the information deficit model,” he said.

“The information deficit model, this idea that if you just pile on more information people will get convinced, is just completely inadequate, he said. “It strengthens the people who actually read and pay attention but it is certainly not going to change or shift the opinions of others.”

Jon Krosnick, professor in humanities and social sciences at Stanford university and an expert on public opinion on climate change, said: “I assume that sceptics would say that there is bias in the editorial process so that the papers ultimately published are not an accurate reflection of the opinions of scientists.”

via Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Cameroon, Stop Senseless Killing of Cross River Gorillas – The Petition Site

  • Target: Government of Cameroon
  • Sponsored by: Susan V

758423-1366148618-main

The Cross River Gorilla is among the world‘s most threatened wildlife subspecies. So why did Cameroon’s Chief of Gendarmerie Brigade order the killing of one of these rare and endangered apes?

A wildlife expert with Environment and Rural Development Foundation (ERuDeF) said the adult male, found dead not far from Cameroon’s proposed wildlife sanctuary, was killed “in the name of self-defense,” without proper investigation to determine whether the animal posed any threat of harm to the local people.

According to reports, the gorilla was apparently tortured, beaten with stones and clubbed, in addition to being shot 45 times.

SIGN PETITION HERE

Avaaz – Live hearing in days — Stop “Fox News North”

In days, the CRTC could decide whether Canadians should be forced to pay for Sun News or ‘Fox News North’. Both Avaaz and Sun News have been asked to appear at the hearing, and Sun News has built a petition of 53,000 over months. We have just a few days to blow it out of the water.

SIGN PETITION HERE

After Harper and his top spin doctor Kory Teneycke met secretly with Rupert Murdoch, Teneycke was involved in modelling Sun News after Murdoch’s Fox News, the political propaganda network that has poisoned U.S. politics. It’s Canadian crony-media — run by a political crony, pushing a political agenda, and now seeking to be funded by a government handout, asking the CRTC to force it onto our basic cable packages.

Sun News have been pushing their petition non-stop for months. If we can double it in a few days, it will send a powerful signal to the CRTC about where Canadians stand – click below to sign and share this email with everyone whocares about Canadian democracy.

As concerned citizens we stand together in urging you to deny Quebecor’s application to grant their Sun News Network exceptional status and force it into our homes at our own expense. Sun News may have the right to offer its views to those who want to listen, but we as consumers have the right not to be forced to pay for it.

 
4248_sunnews2_1_459x230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avaaz – Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

4764_tomatoTakeover_1_460x230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

 

To the governments of Germany, France and the Netherlands and all contracting states of the European Patent Convention:

As concerned citizens, we urge you to take the lead to fix European patent law by calling on the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to close the loopholes that allow corporations to patent plant varieties and conventional breeding methods. Clear and effective safeguards and prohibitions are needed to protect consumers, farmers and breeders from the corporate takeover of our food chain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_twa/?rt

Car Stops — Go Ahead Use them! It’s not just a Song & Dance

Earth Day is coming up. What are you doing to lower your carbon footprint? Are you eating less meat, buying local, or how about your transportation choices? There’s walking, biking, skating, taking buses, car pooling, hitch-hiking…….. have you ever tried using a Car Stop?

Not just for hitch-hikers, this is a place where you can stand or pull over safely and enjoy a ride-share. It builds community and lowers your carbon footprint.

And if you want to add some more fun to your day. You can learn the song & dance too!

 Watch Car Stop Song & Dance Video Here 

Boom in Mining Rare Earths Poses Mounting Toxic Risks

Courtesy by: Mike Ives. Environment 360

images-2The mining of rare earth metals, used in everything from smart phones to wind turbines, has long been dominated by China. But as mining of these key elements spreads to countries like Malaysia and Brazil, scientists warn of the dangers of the toxic and radioactive waste generated by the mines and processing plants.

In November, the first shipment of raw “rare earth” minerals arrived at an $800 million processing plant on Malaysia’s east coast near the home of Tan Bun Teet. The plant, run by Australia’s Lynas Corporation, has since begun refining the rare earth metals, essential components in wind turbines, hybrid cars, smart phones, cruise missiles, and other high-tech products. Once fully operational, the plant would become the world’s largest processing facility of rare earths, breaking China’s near-monopoly on producing the prized elements.

But Tan and others in the region are concerned that the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant, known as LAMP, will be plagued by the severe environmental problems that have been the hallmark of rare earths processing plants in China and, more than two decades ago, in Malaysia itself. The plant lies in an industrial zone atop reclaimed swampland, just 12 miles from Kuantan, a city of 600,000. The chief worry is that the rare earth elements are bound up in mineral deposits with the low-level radioactive element thorium, exposure to which has been linked to an increased risk of developing lung, pancreatic, and other cancers.

“We are not against rare earths processing,” says Tan, a retired schoolteacher who leads a citizens’ group opposed to the plant. “We’re only against the inappropriate choice of site, and the way they’re going to keep the waste.” Tan echoes scientists’ concerns that the plant’s toxic wastewater will leach into groundwater, and that its storage ponds are vulnerable to the monsoons that slam the swampy coastline every autumn.

As global demand has surged in recent years for rare earth elements, fears have grown that China, which accounts for more than 95 percent of rare earths output, will withhold supplies, as it did temporarily two years ago during a dispute with Japan. As a result, across five continents and numerous countries — including the United States, Brazil, Mongolia, and India — rare earth processing projects are being launched or revived. With them comes the potential threats to the environment and human health that have plagued China’s processing sites.

“As the world’s hunger for these elements increases… the waste is going to increase,” says Nicholas Leadbeater, a chemist at the University of Connecticut whose research focuses on developing green technologies. “The more mines there are, the more trouble there’s going to be.” To avoid such problems, Leadbeater says some researchers are now looking into ways of recovering rare earths from existing products, and of manufacturing products capable of running without rare earths. Toyota, for example, is developing an electric motor that does not use rare earths in its battery, as most currently do.

Contrary to their name, the 17 rare earth elements are relatively common — their rarity comes from the labor involved in separating them from surrounding rock. The process requires a cocktail of chemical compounds and produces a “tremendous amount” of solid waste, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. China’s rare earths mines have used only a fraction of the world’s total supply, and substantial untapped reserves are found in Australia, the United States, parts of the former Soviet Union, and other countries. Global demand for rare earths dipped last year on the heels of a speculative bubble, but the EPA said in December there is a “high likelihood” that some of the elements will be in short supply by 2014.

In California, Molycorp Minerals recently reopened a rare earths processing operation that it abandoned in 2002 near Death Valley, after retooling its operation to meet environmental concerns over contaminated groundwater. In Brazil, mining giant Vale is considering whether to process rare earths at a copper mine in the Amazon. India recently agreed to export rare earths to Japan, and a Toyota subsidiary is preparing to mine rare earths in Vietnam. In Greenland, several companies are preparing to mine and process that island’s abundant rare earth resources, which will become more accessible as Greenland’s ice sheet continues to melt.

All of these projects, however, must come to grips with the toxic and radioactive legacy of rare earth mining. Scientists say under-regulated rare earths projects can produce wastewater and tailings ponds that leak acids, heavy metals and radioactive elements into groundwater, and they point out that market pressures for cheap and reliable rare earths may lead project managers to skimp on environmental protections.

In Malaysia, Mitsubishi Chemical is now engaged in a $100 million cleanup of its Bukit Merah rare earths processing site, which it closed in 1992 amid opposition from local residents and Japanese politicians and environmentalists. It is one of Asia’s largest radioactive waste cleanup sites, and local physicians said the thorium contamination from the plant has led to an increase in leukemia and other ailments. The legacy of that project has led many Malaysians to be wary of rare earths mines.

Few independent studies chart the industry’s global ecological fallout. But no country has as many rare earths processing plants, and their attendant environmental problems, as China. Last year, China’s State Council reported that the country’s rare earths operations are causing “increasingly significant” environmental problems. A half century of rare earths mining and processing has “severely damaged surface vegetation, caused soil erosion, pollution, and acidification, and reduced or even eliminated food crop output,” the council reported, adding that Chinese rare earths plants typically produce wastewater with a “high concentration” of radioactive residues.

Bayan-Obo, China’s largest rare earths project, has been operating for more than four decades. According to the Germany-based Institute for Applied Ecology, the site now has an 11-square-kilometer waste pond — about three times the size of New York City’s Central Park — with toxic sludge that contains elevated concentrations of thorium.

China’s lax environmental standards have enabled it to produce rare earths at roughly a third the price of its international competitors, according to a 2010 report on the country’s rare earths industry by the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The report noted that China “has never actually worked out pollutant discharge standards for the rare earth industry.”

Like nuclear power plants, rare earths projects require strict independent auditing in order to prevent environmental damage, according to Peter Karamoskos, a nuclear radiologist and the public’s representative at Australia’s Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. But as the rare earths industry expands to developing countries like Malaysia and Vietnam, such oversight will be unlikely. “A regulator will either be in the pocket of the industry or a government,” he says.

According to Gavin Mudd, an environmental engineer at Australia’s Monash University, rare earths mining provides a wide range of economic and social benefits and can be exploited in a responsible way. However, he says no company — including Mitsubishi and Lynas — has managed to set a good example.

Mudd says Lynas decided to process its rare earths in Malaysia rather than Australia, where they are mined, because it received tax incentives. But he says that Lynas hasn’t meaningfully engaged Malaysian communities to hear their concerns. A key problem with the company’s proposals, he adds, is that it never took a baseline sample of the environment before it began operations, making it difficult to gauge the future environmental impacts. “Their approach to solid waste management has been very haphazard,” says Mudd, who has offered unpaid advice to both the company and the activists who oppose its plans.

Lynas executives, including Executive Chairman Nicholas Curtis, say the plant will operate under high environmental standards and will dilute the thorium-tainted waste by mixing it with lime until it is below accepted international concentrations for the radioactive material. The lime mixture will be turned into solid structures that could be used for sea walls or construction materials, Lynas has said, although it remains unclear where those structures would be exported, and whether the process would use all of the plant’s toxic waste. Curtis has said that there is no comparison between his facility and the old Mitsubishi one, which “never should have been built.”

A recently released study of the plant by the Institute for Applied Ecology sketches a less sanguine portrait of the potential environmental impacts.

The study faults a Lynas plan to dispose of wastewater through an open channel rather than a closed pipeline; a refusal by the company to disclose what the plant’s exact chemical byproducts will be; and a temporary waste storage facility that the institute predicts will cause radioactive leakage “even under normal operating conditions.” A Lynas spokesperson from the company’s Australia headquarters did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the next two decades, the plant is expected to produce about 1.2 million metric tons of “residue,” according to 2011 report prepared by Lynas for Malaysia’s nuclear regulatory agency. It said the plant’s waste will fall within radioactivity limits set by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and may be safely disposed of in “landfill type facilities with limited regulatory control.”

Our high-tech products increasingly make use of rare metals, and mining those resources can have devastating environmental consequences. But if we block projects like the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, Oswald J. Schmitz and Thomas E. Graedelwrite, are we simply forcing mining activity to other parts of the world where protections may be far weaker?

The waste, however, will emit low levels of carcinogenic radioactivity for centuries, according to scientists. The International Atomic Energy Association recommended in 2011 that Malaysia’s nuclear regulatory agency grant Lynas an operating license only after it submits a permanent decommissioning plan. Unlike Australia, Malaysia is not a party to the IAEA’s legally binding 2001 convention governing appropriate and safe disposal of radioactive waste.

For most of last year, Lynas was locked in court battles against retired schoolteacher Tan Bun Teet and his grassroots coalition “Save Malaysia, Stop Lynas!,” which challenged the government’s January decision to grant the company a temporary operating license. This fall, Lynas finally won its temporary operating license after clearing legal appeals, and Tan says the first truckload of rare earths from the company’s Australia mine rolled into its new Malaysia refinery on November 30 under police escort. But four Malaysian cabinet ministers warned in December that the company must export the radioactive waste from its new plant or risk losing its license.

Tan Bun Teet and his fellow activists, whose street protests in the Malaysian capital have faced tear gas and water cannons, are keeping up their legal fight by filing new appeals. Tan is especially concerned that the 247-acre Lynas plant sits atop reclaimed wetland that is prone to flooding and lies only about two miles from the South China Sea. The area receives about 10 feet of rainfall per year, and recent monsoon rains left the area drenched.

“We are worried,” he says. “We don’t want our environment to be destroyed as it was in China.”

Plastic-Free Doesn’t Mean BPA-Free

Courtesy by: Care 2. Kristina Chew

Unknown-1Using a BPA-free water bottle? Going out of your way to avoid soaps, shampoos, cosmetics and other products with phthlates and to eat locally-grown, organic produce? All this may still not be enough to reduce your exposure to these endrocrine-disrupting chemicals, according to a recent study. Scientists from the University of Washington School of Public Health have found that we can still be exposed to these substances via our diet, organic or not, and even if we use non-plastic containers to store food.

BPA or bisphenol A and phthalates are synthetic chemicals that have been found to adversely affect the endocrine systems. In particular, prenatal exposure to phthalates has been linked to abnormalities in the male reproductive system. In girls, fetal exposure to BPA has been connected to hyperactivity, anxiety and depression.

Researchers under Sheela Sathyanarayana studied ten families. Five were given specific instructions on reducing phthalate and BPA exposure. The other five received a specially catered diet for five days, with all the food consisting of local, fresh, organic ingredients that was not prepared, cooked or stored in plastic containers. The researchers predicted that the latter group would, after testing, have lower urinary concentrations of phthalates and BPA.

Instead, the researchers discovered the opposite, that the five families (and the children in partucular) who’d eaten the special diet had 100-fold higher phthalate concentrations than the levels found in the general population (based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Further testing of the locally sourced and organic ingredients used in preparing the meals for the five families revealed the possible culprits. High rates of phthalates were detected in the food and especially in butter, milk, cheese and spices such as ground cinnamon and cayenne pepper.

Based on all this, the researchers estimated that an average child of three to six years old has been exposed to 183 milligrams per kilogram of their body weight per day, far in excess of the 20 mg/kg/day limit recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Clearly, as Sathyanarayana comments, the study shows how

“…very little control [we have] over what’s in our food, including contaminants. Families can focus on buying fresh fruits and vegetables, foods that are not canned and are low in fat, but it may take new federal regulations to reduce exposures to these chemicals.”

Even when (as many of us do) we seek to control our exposure to chemicals, we’re far less in control than we’d like — meaning that, it’s even more necessary to push for policies to protect our food supply. As the researchers make very clear, “food contamination can be a major source of DEHP [phthalate] exposure.”

Sathyanarayana’s and her colleagues’s study is another reminder to keep food safety at the top of the agenda, and be wary of salads that could be killing you, genetically engineered foods and foods imported from other countries where regulations are even more lacking.

Cancer risk higher among people who eat more processed meat, study finds

Courtesy by: Danis Campbell. The Guardian

Unknown-1Biggest consumers of food such as ham, bacon and sausages are 44% more likely to die prematurely, according to research

Those who ate high levels of meat such as bacon had a 72% higher risk of death from heart disease and 11% higher risk of death from cancer.
People who eat a lot of processed meat such as ham, bacon, sausages and burgers run a greater risk of premature death and developing conditions such as cancer and heart disease, research shows.

The study, which included data from 448,568 people in 10 European countries, including the UK, found that the biggest consumers of processed meat were 44% more likely to die prematurely from any cause than those who ate little of it. High levels of consumption increased the risk of death from heart disease by 72% and cancer by 11%.

If everyone ate no more than 20g a day of processed meat – about one rasher of bacon, chipolata sausage or thin slice of ham – then 3% of all premature deaths could be avoided, according to an estimate by the authors, led by Professor Sabine Rohrmann from the University of Zurich. Their results are published in the journal BMC Medicine.

But a small amount of red meat also seems to benefit health, because it contains important nutrients and minerals, they add. Risks rise in line with the level of consumption, the researchers found. The results are in line with previous studies. Dr Rachel Thompson, deputy head of science at the World Cancer Research Fund, said the research bore out its own findings in 2007 – disputed by the meat industry at the time – about the health risks of processed meat.

It has found that consuming bacon, ham, hot dogs, salami and some sausages heightened the risk of bowel cancer. The charity estimates that 4,100 fewer Britons a year would be diagnosed with the disease if everyone ate no more than 10g of processed meat a day, though advises avoiding it altogether.

Dr Carrie Ruxton, a nutritionist who sits on the meat industry-funded Meat Advisory Panel, said the study’s findings were not robust enough to justify changing public health advice. The fact those who consumed the largest amounts of processed meat also displayed other unhealthy habits meant it was hard to confidently ascribe risk of death to meat eating alone, she said.

“The occasional bacon butty isn’t going to do you much harm. People shouldn’t avoid bacon or salami because they think it’s going to kill them, because it won’t. We can’t say that from this study. But we do know that processed meat has a higher salt and fat content, so having bacon or salami in moderation, and switching to lean red meat products, is a good idea,” Ruxton added. Tracy Parker, a heart health dietitian with the British Heart Foundation, said people who ate a lot of processed meat should try to eat a more varied diet, such as chicken, fish, beans or lentils.