I'm just trying to save the world
Sanjit “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”.
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!
Courtesy by: Care 2. Kristina Chew
Using 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.
Courtesy by: Alicia Graef. Care 2.
Animal advocates are celebrating a landmark decision handed down from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to fast-track the removal of two final tests of cosmetic products on animals from India’s safety standard.
“The directive was issued during an emergency meeting of the Bureau of Indian Standards PCD19 Cosmetic Sectional Committee, to which HSI/India was a special invitee, and marks the beginning of the end of acute oral toxicity (lethal poisoning) and oral mucosal irritation animal testing for cosmetic purposes in India,”according to the Humane Society International.
From now on, companies who want to test their products or ingredients will have to submit a non-animal testing proposal to the DCGI for approval.
“It’s unthinkable that in this day and age, animals are still choking on cosmetic chemicals in decades-old poisoning tests while companies choke on their own inertia in switching to a cruelty-free business model,” said HSI India Be Cruelty-Free Campaign Manager Alokparna Sengupta.
In the absence of non-animal alternatives, validation by the regulator will be done on an individual basis. The regulator is currently examining the European Union’s ban, according to the Hindu Business Line.
After decades of campaigning, the EU is set to finalize its ban this month, and animal advocates are counting down the days. This historic victory for animals means that from March 11 onwards, anyone who wants to sell new cosmetics products and their raw ingredients in the EU may not test either on animals anywhere the world.
Israel also recently enacted a law banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect on December 31.
Both of these moves send a strong message in support of cruelty-free products to the rest of the world and have peaked curiosity and support from a number of countries, including Korea, who will hopefully follow suit.
“Following the European marketing ban we are seeing doors open in all the major exporting countries as industry tackles the job of converting all their safety testing to modern non-animal methods. We are particularly pleased to see the active interest of Korean industry and we will do all we can to encourage progress,” said Cruelty Free International Director of Policy, Dr Nick Palmer.
To find cruelty-free products already available on the international market, visit gocrueltyfree.org.
via Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next? | Care2 Causes.
Courtesy by: Alicia Graef.Care 2
Animal advocates, and animals in labs, were given yet another reason to celebrate the new year with the enactment of a law in Israel banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect at midnight on December 31.
“Animal testing in the Cosmetics Industry inflicts horrific suffering on these animals. Each product requires between 2,000-3,000 tests, and animals die in agony,” said MK Eitan Cabel, who called the move a “true revolution in animal welfare.”
Animal testing for cosmetics and other products was banned in Israel in 2007, but this new ban is focused on products that are imported from other countries and will also mean an end to marketing products that have been tested on animals, even if the testing was done elsewhere in the world.
“The end of animal testing for cosmetics has come a step closer today,” said Troy Seidle, director of research & toxicology for Humane Society International (HSI). “Whilst we commend Israel for taking this truly historic action, strict enforcement of the law alongside active assistance from cosmetic companies, will now be vital. HSI’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign is working in India, Brazil, South Korea, the United States and beyond to achieve a world where no animal has to suffer and die for the sake of cosmetics. Once the EU enforces its own sales ban in March, the creation of these two cruelty-free markets will be a significant milestone towards achieving our goal.”
The EU adopted legislation to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 1993, which was supposed to go into effect in 1998, but was repeatedly delayed. In 2009, all animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the EU and supported by campaigns from organizations including HSI, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.
The 2009 ban was also accompanied by a marketing ban for products that were tested outside of the EU. However, the deadline was delayed for three types of tests in an effort to buy time to develop alternatives. As of the March deadline, if it’s not delayed again, no cosmetic products with ingredients that have been tested on animals will be sold in the EU, whether or not there is an alternative test available.
For more information on the EU ban, visit No Cruel Cosmetics. To find truly cruelty-free products, visit gocrueltyfree.org.
Every year billions of animals are inhumanely captured and killed to provide for your entertainment, and to make products for you to buy here and around the world. It’s called the international wildlife trade, and you can help stop it by avoiding products and experiences that come from these abused animals. Use the map to learn more and sign the pledge below!
Use the links below to see how your choices affect wildlife. Then eat, shop, and go wild!
Countless numbers of animals suffer every year as victims of the international wildlife trade. I pledge to avoid contributing to the illegal wildlife trade and animal suffering by not purchasing items made with or from wild animal parts, not purchasing live wild animals, and not patronizing facilities that keep wildlife captive under inhumane conditions.
After you take action, you’ll receive updates by email on how you can help animals. You can easily opt out at any time.
HSI works year-round to encourage policy-makers to improve and enforce laws and regulations in order to reduce the trade in wildlife.We send our team of experts to the triennial CITES meeting to fight for greater protection for wildlife around the world. And we conduct regular outreach to the public about how their consumption and travel choices impact wildlife. Learn more, and join us, athumanesocietyinternational.org.
Courtesy by: Alicia Graef. Care 2
After decades of delays, disappointment and campaigning by animal advocacy groups, the European Union is finally set to enact its ban on animal testing for cosmetics this spring.
Beginning on March 11, anyone selling cosmetic products in the EU will not be allowed to test finished products or their ingredients on animals anywhere in the world, whether or not an alternative to animal testing is available.
The EU adopted legislation to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 1993, which was supposed to go into effect in 1998, but was repeatedly delayed. In 2009, all animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the EU and supported by campaigns from organizations including HSI, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE).
However, thanks to industry lobbying, the deadline was delayed for a few types of tests in an effort to buy time to develop alternatives and the former European Commissioner in charge of the EU’s cosmetics regulations was considering recommendations to delay or weaken the ban yet again, while animal advocates continued to work to ensure the 2013 deadline would be met.
“I believe that the ban should enter into force in March 2013 as Parliament and Council have already decided. I am therefore not planning to propose a postponement or derogation to the ban. This decision also means that we need to step up our efforts in the development, validation and acceptance of alternative methods as well as in the international recognition of these methods,” wrote Tonio Borg, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, in a letter to the ECEAE.
Despite the fact that reliable alternatives to animal testing are available, and the fact that hundreds of companies are successfully developing and selling vegan and truly cruelty-free products, millions of animals continue to to suffer and die an agonizing death behind closed doors at the hands of companies who refuse to give up the practice for nothing more than human vanity.
“This is truly an historic event and the culmination of over 20 years of campaigning. Now we will apply our determination and vision on a global stage to ensure that the rest of the world follows this lead,” said Michelle Thew, Chief Executive of Cruelty Free International.
Hopefully, the rest of the world will follow suit. Israel recently announced a ban on animal testing for cosmetics and household products and India announced that is considering a similar move.
To find animal-friendly products already on the market, visit gocrueltyfree.org.
via Finally! EU Set to Ban Cosmetics Testing on Animals This Spring | Care2 Causes.
Courtes: Humane Society International/Canada
Canadian seal products are among those prohibited
It is time for the Canadian government to face facts and end its support of the fading sealing industry. Katie Carrus/The HSUSMONTREAL—Humane Society International/Canada commends Taiwan for passing a landmark ban on trade in marine mammal products, including seal skins, but exempting products of traditional indigenous hunts. The Taiwanese Legislative Yuan passed the legislation with unanimous support following a multi-year campaign by Taiwanese animal protection group EAST in collaboration with HSI.
“The compassionate actions of the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan will save countless seals and other marine mammals from a horrible fate,” said Rebecca Aldworth, executive director of HSI Canada. “The momentum to end trade in marine mammal products is growing and the sealing industry’s days are numbered. Instead of providing more pointless subsidies to artificially prop up this shameful practice, Canada should prohibit the slaughter and invest in a transition program for sealers.”
“Citizens of Taiwan care deeply about animal welfare, and we do not want to trade in products of cruelty that the rest of the world has rejected,” said Wu Hung, executive director of EAST. “I am very proud of the leadership Taiwan has shown in banning trade in marine mammal products. I hope that many other nations will follow suit, and that the Canadian government will finally do as the majority of Canadians and people around the world want and end the seal hunt for good.”
“Between 2003 and 2009, Taiwan imported 430,000 kilograms of seal oil, which made us the 4th largest importer of seal oil in the world. Through our trade in seal products, consumers in Taiwan were unintentionally involved in the killing of thousands of innocent seals in Canada,” said Legislator Lin of the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. “Taiwan’s decision is an important step forward for animal protection and conservation in Asia.” Canada’s commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. Because most Canadians oppose commercial sealing, the products of the seal slaughter are almost entirely exported. With the United States, European Union and Russia prohibiting trade in seal products, the Canadian sealing industry has sought to develop alternate markets in Asia, sparking protests in mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.
EAST launched their campaign to secure a Taiwanese ban on seal product trade in 2010, achieving massive public support for the move and convincing many retailers in Taiwan to voluntarily discontinue sales of seal products. The prohibition on trade in marine mammal products cements Taiwan’s position and ensures that its trade in marine mammal products will never resume.
Facts:
Media Contact: Dean Pogas, 514.395.2914, dpogas@humanesociety.org
Humane Society International/Canada is a leading force for animal protection, representing tens of thousands of members and constituents across the country. HSI/Canada has active programs in companion animals, wildlife and habitat protection, marine mammal preservation and farm animal welfare. HSI/Canada is proud to be a part of Humane Society International—one of the largest animal protection organizations in the world, with more than eleven million members and constituents globally—on the Web at hsicanada.ca.
EAST works to create a better quality of life by improving animal welfare and environmental protection through research, legislation and education campaigns along with social justice – on the Web at www.east.org.tw
By Jeff Spross on Jan 22, 2013 at 4:30 pm Thinkprogress.org
Through June of 2012, renewable energywas right behind natural gas in terms of the most new energy generating capacity being installed in the United States, with wind making up most of the renewables push. And now Business Insider has flagged the numbers for the remainder of the year.
Last week, they reported that wind ultimately pulled ahead of natural gas to become the leading installer of new capacity in 2012, at 10,689 total megawatts.
Those numbers came from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s report on the trends and highlights in U.S. energy for the past year. According to FERC’s update, natural gas installed 8,746 megawatts of new capacity, coal installed 4,510 new megawatts, and solar came in fourth with 1,476 new megawatts. Here’s the relevant table from the report, conveniently highlighted by Business Insider:
One thing to note here is the issue of capacity factor: That’s how much power an installation actually produces as a percentage of its theoretical capacity. (Which is what’s listed in the table.) Natural gas plants do quite well in this regard: Their median performance tends to come out to at least 80 percent, and they max out at 93 percent, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s cost database.
Unfortunately, wind power doesn’t perform as well, due to the intermittency of, well, wind. Its median tends to be around 40 percent offshore. Onshore it’s been at 30 percent, though arguably onshore performance is pulling alongside offshore. And both max out at 50 to 54 percent. So even though wind beat out natural gas for new capacity in 2012, the new natural gas installation will almost certainly wind up generating more total electricity.
The good news for wind is that it’s still a relatively young technology, with lots of room to improve. The energy it does deliver is produced much more efficiently in comparison to natural gas — the former loses less than one percent of its energy as waste heat, while the latter can lose as much as 54 percent. Natural gas production in the U.S. may be on track to plateau, leading to predictions of rising prices, which will give wind power a further economic opening.
And, of course, there’s the fact that, while cleaner than coal, natural gas remains a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions both through leaks and combustion.
As it turns out, this post’s math was unjustly critical of wind energy. The numbers for capacity are theoretical, but as as an email commenter pointed out, the numbers for capacity utilization are theoretical as well.
So how have wind and natural gas actually performed? Well, in 2010, nameplate capacity for natural gas was 467.2 gigawatts, and 39.5 gigawatts for wind. That same year, natural gas generated 987,700 gigawatthours and wind generated 94,700 gigawatthours. Multiply the capacities by the 8760 hours in a year, and what you get is natural gas produced 24.1 percent of its nameplate capacity in 2010, and wind produced 27.4 percent.
Now, a lot of “peaker” power plants — ones intended to only operate during hours of peak electricity demand — are gas-fired. Around half the natural gas plants in the country probably fall into this camp, which will dramatically skew natural gas’ capacity utilization to the low end. So factor in peakers and natural gas still probably beats out wind, but by less than our piece implied.
Courtesy Rainforest Action Network
Written by Ashley Schaeffer
“Companies buying palm oil need to be aware that the only way to ensure sustainable sourcing is to buy certified sustainable palm oil from companies that have been assessed against the RSPO standards. Buying from RSPO members is not enough.” – WWF, August 2010
Scouts USA (GSUSA) has actively resisted getting rainforest-destroying palm oil out of their cookies for years now. Instead, they tout the fact that their two cookie bakers are members of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).
But Girl Scouts USA and anyone else touting RSPO membership as a green seal of approval — or anyone who even claims that RSPO membership makes a company’s products “orangutan friendly” — are gravely misleading the public with false claims.
Girl Scouts of America sold roughly 198 million boxes of Girl Scout cookies in 2009. One of the two cookie manufacturers, Little Brownie Bakers, bakes over 4,500,000 Thin Mints per day during peak baking times. And guess what’s going into every single one of those cookies? Palm oil, a controversial commodity closely connected to widespread deforestation and social conflicts in Indonesia.
RSPO Members Have Been Documented Destroying Orangutan HabitatFor a cookie business raking in $714 million a year with a presence in all 50 states and 2.7 million young sales women, one would think that Girl Scouts USA would make sure that the ingredients they’re using are in line with the Girl Scout values and mission to make the world a better place and use resources wisely.
The RSPO is a body of stakeholders including palm oil producers, processors, traders, retailers, banks and NGOs working to promote the growth, production, distribution and use of sustainable palm oil. There is a very important distinction between RSPO membership and RSPO certification. RSPO certification is a seal of approval that is given to palm oil grown on a plantation that has been certified through a verification of the production process by accredited certifying agencies. In theory, the “certified sustainable” palm oil (RSPO oil) is traceable through the supply chain by certification of each facility along the supply chain that processes or uses the certified oil.
RSPO membership, on the other hand, is much different. As we recently advised Girl Scouts USA CEO Kathy Cloninger in a letter of concern about the palm oil in Girl Scout cookies:
Although Girl Scout cookie bakers have RSPO membership, RSPO membership does not provide any assurance that palm oil supplied by member companies is sustainable. Member companies have been documented clearing forest, peatland and critical wildlife habitat while ignoring human rights — all of which are prohibited in the RSPO principles and criteria. In essence RSPO membership does not ensure that deforestation, orangutan extinction, and climate change are not found in Girl Scout cookies.
According to an independent audit commissioned by Unilever, RSPO member Sinar Mas has contributed to the opening up of deep peatland, deforestation of orangutan habitat, and occurrences of fire hot spots.
Mongabay reports, “The [RSPO] has been battered over the past year with revelations that some members have continued to destroy ecologically sensitive habitats. Prominent members, including Unilever and Nestle, have had to act outside the RSPO process to address misconduct by RSPO-member suppliers.”
Sinar Mas is not the only RSPO member that has been caught red-handed. There are many cases that illustrate the fact that RSPO members regularly violate the principles and criteria they have agreed to respect with their membership. Take the example of RSPO Member IOI Group. While it has some RSPO-certified plantations, the same company has others that are the source of major social conflict.
Conservation scientists report critical habitat protection weaknesses in the RSPO system. William Laurance of James Cook University and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute argues that the initiative’s objectives are undermined by the composition of its membership, which is dominated by palm oil industry growers, processors, and traders. He says:
[T]his conflict of interest results in lax requirements for membership, a cumbersome complaints process for reporting violations, and lack of oversight and enforcement. It needs to get tougher with member companies that are destroying large swaths of primary forest. Otherwise, it risks becoming an apologist for an environmentally destructive industry.
Until RSPO membership means more than simply paying a few thousand dollars a year in membership fees, any company or organization that claims any product made by an RSPO member is orangutan or forest friendly is grossly misleading the public. Orangutans and forests will only be truly protected in Sumatra and Borneo once expansion of palm oil in fragile tropical forests ceases and a moratorium on deforestation for palm oil is both adopted and implemented.
Sanjit "Bunker" Roy's Barefoot Architects are creating a better future for over 75,000 children in … [Read More...]
Earth Day is coming up. What are you doing to lower your carbon footprint? Are you eating less meat, … [Read More...]
Michael Lewis is executive director of the Canadian Centre for Community Renewal in Vancouver and … [Read More...]
View Calendar
✔ Subscribe
Add to Google
BUSHMEAT
CORAL SOUVENIRS
FROG LEGS
FUR
IVORY
LEATHERS & SKINS
LION WALKS
LIVE ANIMALS
MARINE SHOWS
PHOTOS WITH WILDLIFE
RHINO HORN
ROADSIDE ZOOS
SEA TURTLE MEAT
SEA TURTLE SHELL
SHARK FIN SOUP
SHARK LIVER OIL/SKIN
SHARK TEETH
TRADITIONAL MEDICINES
WHALE & DOLPHIN MEAT
WOOLS