News from The Huffington Post
    02.07.2009
    What if the images from the tribute(s) to Michael Jackson in the days ahead told another story besides the love of millions of fans for the music and the moves of the King of Pop?



    In the week since Michel Jackson's unexpected death, hundreds of thousands -- a number that will doubtless grow to millions -- of his fans have been seeking ways to pay tribute to the man and his music. Armies of Jackson admirers and journalists made the pilgrimage to his Neverland ranch after false reports of a Friday public viewing made headlines. Elsewhere around the world Jackson fans have been dancing and holding candlelight vigils outside US embassies. There is now a public memorial planned for Jackson at the 20,000 capacity Staples Center in Los Angeles on July 7 with overflow in the Nokia Liva "public square."



    What if instead of spending $20 on flowers to leave behind on tribute sites, or tying $10 Mylar balloons to fences, Jackson's fans instead honored his humanitarian streak by making a donation to charity? Outpourings and love and grief are natural and cathartic, but Jackson, of course, was among other things a well-known and longtime supporter of many charitable causes. His We Are the World project which supported famine relief efforts in Africa may be his best known philanthropic work, but the Guinness Book of World Records Millennium Edition listed Jackson as the world's most charitable pop star, who supported 39 charitable organizations through donations, sponsorships and by participating in auctions. Some of the charities he supported were the Make A Wish Foundation, Minority Aids Project, American Cancer Society, Heal the World Foundation, among many others.



    What if the incessant MJ news coverage in store for us the week ahead spoke of an incredible spike in charitable donations, with billions of dollars going to humanitarian organizations around the world -- ideally fighting child abuse and pornography, stemming violence in Africa including against women and girls (not to mention Mother Earth), and other similar critical issues -- rather than panning the camera to show endless fields of flowers and balloons at Neverland, US embassies, the Jackson family home, and elsewhere?



    Surely the planet would breathe a sign of appreciation as tons of waste would be averted from landfills (and the ocean would be spared a mountain of balloons), and I would also venture to guess that the famous philanthropist's children will one day thank his millions of fans for leaving a lasting and sustaining legacy for the truly best of their father's memory.




    Read more: Environment, Michael Jackson, Charity, Violence, Child Abuse, Africa, Green, Women and Girls; The Giving Life, Green Living, Living News
    02.07.2009
    IN TODAY'S AUDIO REPORT: California wins one for a change; Where's the beef? Recalled!; Did EPA suppress study from global warming skeptic?... PLUS: Wingnuts lose it over cap-and-trade...All that and more in today's 'End of the World' Green News Report!



    Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail, E. coli burgers? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.



    Download MP3 (6 mins), or listen online here...



    Link:

    Embed:



    IN 'GREEN NEWS EXTRA': Exxon Mobil will pay $400 million in interest on damages from Exxon Valdez oil spill; EPA releases list of "high hazard" coal waste impoundment sites; Some gray wolves to receive 'protected' status again... PLUS: Judge reverses Bush Administration's creative forest "management" rules...



    For additional info on stories we covered today, plus more Green News, please visit our website: GreenNews.Bradblog.com!


    Read more: Cap and Trade, Exxon Mobil, Epa, Green News Report, Exxon Valdez, Bush Administration, Waxman-Markey, California Emissions Standards, Green News, Environment, Fox News, Coal Ash, Climate Change, Climate Change Denial, Food Recall, Gray Wolves Endangered Species, Forests, Republicans, Green News
    02.07.2009
    The public's right-to-know scored a victory this week when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released the list of the 44 coal ash sites deemed "high hazard." This comes two weeks after a coalition of organizations including the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding the release of the list.



    Since then we've been crunching some numbers to learn more this list of coal ash storage sites. First of all, we've put the 44 sites onto Google Maps so you can see just how close you are to one.



    Here's an example of one of the sites.





    Moundsville, WV coal pond



    The "high hazard potential" coal ash storage sites listed by EPA are all located near coal-fired electric power plants concentrated in 10 states; with 12 sites in North Carolina and nine sites in Arizona alone. We also see many of the same energy offenders in the release: Topping the list with 11 sites electric utility giant American Electric Power, followed closely by Duke Energy and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative.





    Cochise AZ coal ponds



    After doing some demographic research on these locations, we've also noticed that 20 of the coal ash storage sites are in areas where high percentages of people live below the poverty line (some sites have more than one pond). For example, in Louisa, Ky., where the Big Sandy coal ash storage site operated by American Electric Power is located, more than 29% of the community lives below the poverty line.



    For some perspective, more than 12% of Americans nationwide live below the poverty line.



    Another example is the coal ash site located at Allegheny Power's Pleasants Power Station near Willow Island, West Virginia. There, more than 20% of the community lives below the poverty line.



    Yet another example comes from the site with the most coal ash storage ponds in one location: Cochise, Arizona, with its eight storage ponds at the Apache Station operated by Arizona Electric Power Corporation. In Cochise, more than 19% of residents live below the poverty line. (All our city data comes from the 2000 Census)



    Coal ash impoundments were placed on this EPA list based on the potential for harm to surrounding communities in the event of an accident, but at the request of the Department of Homeland Security and the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency had previously refused to release the information.



    It's important to point out that these sites are listed as hazardous due to the location and condition of the dams, NOT because of the pollution stored behind them and whether or not it is seeping out into local drinking water. These 44 sites are places where a dam failure would likely result in a loss of life. We still don't know just how many of the hundreds of coal ash sites nationwide are leaking toxic pollution into local drinking water supplies, but evidence is mounting that dozens of communities are living with that nightmare every day.




    The TVA dam breach disaster from last December



    The next step is to clean these sites up expeditiously, so that they no longer present a hazard to downstream communities. At the same time, EPA must move forward to close the regulatory loopholes that the coal industry has enjoyed for far too long. It is time to require the coal industry to treat coal ash as the hazardous waste that it is.



    Tell your Senator to push for coal ash regulations.



    Announcing these high hazard coal ash storage sites also underscores the need to move beyond the dirty energy sources of the past. It's time to get America running on clean energy. Instead of the toxic legacy of America's dirty energy past, the clean energy future promises millions of new jobs, healthier communities, and a safer climate for future generations.
    Read more: Environment, Coal, TVA Disaster, Sierra Club, Coal Ash, Home News
    Guardian's Environment news
    04.07.2009
    After the death of Ian Tomlinson, there was no talk of devastation, of lessons learned, of sadness and shock – just a lot of denialThe contrast couldn't be greater. Commenting on two deaths apparently caused by police malpractice yesterday, a Chief Superintendent said that everyone in the force was "devastated" by the incident. "We will certainly take any lessons we can get from this process and make sure we put them in place so this sort of thing never happens again. It has caused immense sadness and immense shock." The police reported themselves to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and have launched their own investigation. The local police authority immediately swung into action too. Its chairman announced that "We are requiring a guarantee from the force that measures are being put in place immediately to ensure that an incident like this can never happen again." So who had the police killed? Well, not "who" exactly. This breast-beating is about two police dogs which were left in a car on Tuesday and died of heatstroke. Ridiculously, the BBC decided that this merited a top headline yesterday afternoon. Nottinghamshire police flailed themselves in public for their negligence. I agree that it was a sad and stupid mistake and I'm glad that the police want to make sure it won't happen again. But their response suggests that they care more about dogs than human beings. When Ian Tomlinson died after being pushed over by a police officer at the G20 protests on 1 April, the police denied, delayed and obfuscated. Even though they appear to have known that Tomlinson had had physical contact with an officer, they suggested that he had collapsed spontaneously. They falsely claimed that they had tried to help him but had been showered with bottles by protesters. They said that Tomlinson's family was "not surprised" that he had died – also untrue. They told journalists that he had suffered a heart attack, but the second postmortem later revealed heavy internal bleeding. Today the Guardian reveals that Freddy Patel, the pathologist assigned to conduct the first postmortem, had been reported – by the Metropolitan police – to the Home Office following concerns about his standard of work in four cases. His work was found to be substandard in three cases. Patel had already attracted controversy after he concluded in 2002 that a woman found locked in a bedroom belonging to the serial killer Anthony Hardy, with a bitemark on her thigh, had died of natural causes. His diagnosis allowed Hardy to go on to kill two other women. So why was he, of all people, pulled in to handle this case? He had not had a contract to work for any police force for several years, but he was nonetheless put in charge of this politically sensitive postmortem. Whatever the reason, he confirmed the suggestion made by the police, concluding that Tomlinson had died of a heart attack. A second postmortem, conducted by a well-respected pathologist, found that he had died of internal bleeding. Even after it became clear that Ian Tomlinson had been pushed over by the police, they sought to cloud the issue. A police investigator proposed the laughable hypothesis that the person who knocked him over might not have been a policeman, but a member of the public "dressed in police uniform". There was no talk of devastation, of lessons learned, of sadness and shock, just a lot of butt-covering and denial. The impression the police gave was that the last thing they wanted to do was to get to the bottom of why Tomlinson died, let alone change their practices to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. Unlike the dogs, his life didn't seem to be worth that much. monbiot.comguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


    04.07.2009
    Latin American nation tops index ranking countries by ecological footprint and happiness of their citizensCosta Rica is the greenest and happiest country in the world, according to a new list that ranks nations by combining measures of their ecological footprint with the happiness of their citizens.Britain is only halfway up the Happy Planet Index (HPI), calculated by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), in 74th place of 143 nations surveyed. The United States features in the 114th slot in the table. The top 10 is dominated by countries from Latin America, while African countries bulk out the bottom of the table.The HPI measures how much of the Earth's resources nations use and how long and happy a life their citizens enjoy as a result. First calculated in 2006, the second edition adds data on almost all the world's countries and now covers 99% of the world's population.NEF says the HPI is a much better way of looking the success of countries than through standard measures of economic growth. The HPI shows, for example, that fast-growing economies such as the US, China and India were all greener and happier 20 years ago than they are today."The HPI suggests that the path we have been following is, without exception, unable to deliver all three goals: high life satisfaction, high life expectancy and 'one-planet living'," says Saamah Abdallah, NEF researcher and the report's lead author. "Instead we need a new development model that delivers good lives that don't cost the Earth for all."Costa Ricans top the list because they report the highest life satisfaction in the world, they live slightly longer than Americans, yet have an ecological footprint that is less than a quarter the size. The country only narrowly fails to achieve the goal of what NEF calls "one-planet living": consuming its fair share of the Earth's natural resources.The report says the differences between nations show that it is possible to live long, happy lives with much smaller ecological footprints than the highest-consuming nations.The new HPI also provides the first ever analysis of trends over time for what are supposedly the world's most developed nations, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).OECD nations' HPI scores plummeted between 1960 and the late 1970s. Although there have been some gains since then, HPI scores were still higher in 1961 than in 2005.Life satisfaction and life expectancy combined have increased 15% over the 45-year period for those living in the rich nations, but it has come at the cost of a 72% rise in their ecological footprint. And the three largest countries in the world – China, India and the US, which are aggressively pursuing growth-based development models – have all seen their HPI scores drop in that time.The highest placed western nation is the Netherlands. People there live on average over a year longer than people in the US, and have similar levels of life satisfaction – yet their per capita ecological footprint is less than half the size. The Netherlands is therefore over twice as environmentally efficient at achieving good lives as the US, Nef says.The report sets out a "Happy Planet Charter" calling for an unprecedented collective global effort to develop a "new narrative" of human progress, encourage good lives that don't cost the earth, and to reduce consumption in the highest-consuming nations – which it says is the biggest barrier to sustainable wellbeing.guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


    03.07.2009
    • UN sounds warning after 30m hectares bought up
    • G8 leaders to discuss 'neo-colonialism'The acquisition of farmland from the world's poor by rich countries and international corporations is accelerating at an alarming rate, with an area half the size of Europe's farmland targeted in the last six months, reports from UN officials and agriculture experts say.New reports from the UN and analysts in India, Washington and London estimate that at least 30m hectares is being acquired to grow food for countries such as China and the Gulf states who cannot produce enough for their populations. According to the UN, the trend is accelerating and could severely impair the ability of poor countries to feed themselves.Today it emerged that world leaders are to discuss what is being described as "land grabbing" or "neo-colonialism" at the G8 meeting next week. A spokesman for Japan's ministry of foreign affairs confirmed that it would raise the issue: "We feel there should be a code of conduct for investment in farmland that will be a win-win situation for both producing and consuming countries," he said.Olivier De Schutter, special envoy for food at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: "[The trend] is accelerating quickly. All countries observe each other and when one sees others buying land it does the same."The UN's food and agricultural organisation and other analysts estimate that nearly 20m hectares (50m acres) of farmland – an area roughly half the size of all arable land in Europe – has been sold or has been negotiated for sale or lease in the last six months. Around 10m hectares was bought last year. The land grab is being blamed on wealthy countries with concerns about food security.Some of the largest deals include South Korea's acquisition of 700,000ha in Sudan, and Saudi Arabia's purchase of 500,000ha in Tanzania. The Democratic Republic of the Congo expects to shortly conclude an 8m-hectare deal with a group of South African businesses to grow maize and soya beans as well as poultry and dairy farming.India has lent money to 80 companies to buy 350,000ha in Africa. At least six countries are known to have bought large landholdings in Sudan, one of the least food-secure countries in the world.Other countries that have acquired land in the last year include the Gulf states, Sweden, China and Libya. Those targeted include not only fertile countries such as Brazil, Russia and Ukraine, but also poor countries like Cameroon, Ethiopia, Madagascar, and Zambia.De Schutter said that after the food crisis of 2008, many countries found food imports hit their balance of payments, "so now they want to insure themselves"."This is speculation, betting on future prices. What we see now is that countries have lost trust in the international market. We know volatility will increase in the next few years. Land prices will continue to rise. Many deals are even now being negotiated. Not all are complete yet."He said that about one-fifth of the land deals were expected to grow biofuel crops. "But it is impossible to know with certainty because declarations are not made as to what crops will be grown," he said.Some of the world's largest food, financial and car companies have invested in land.Alpcot Agro of Sweden bought 120,000ha in Russia, South Korea's Hyundai has paid $6.5m (£4m) for a majority stake in Khorol Zerno, which owns 10,000ha in Eastern Siberia, while Morgan Stanley has bought 40,000ha in Ukraine. Last year South Korea's Daewoo signed a 99-year lease for 1.3m hectares of agricultural land in Madagascar.Devinder Sharma, analyst with the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in India, predicted civil unrest."Outsourcing food production will ensure food security for investing countries but would leave behind a trail of hunger, starvation and food scarcities for local populations," he said. "The environmental tab of highly intensive farming – devastated soils, dry aquifer, and ruined ecology from chemical infestation – will be left for the host country to pick up."In Madagascar, the Daewoo agreement was seen as a factor in the subsequent uprising that led to the ousting of the president, Marc Ravalomanana. His replacement, Andry Rajoelina, immediately moved to repeal the deal.Concern is mounting because much of the land has been targeted for its good water supplies and proximity to ports. According to a report last month by the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development, the land deals "create risks and opportunities"."Increased investment may bring benefits such as GDP growth and improved government revenues, and may create opportunities for economic development and livelihood improvement. But they may result in local people losing access to the resources on which they depend for their food security – particularly as some key recipient countries are themselves faced with food security challenges", said the authors.According to a US-based thinktank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, nearly $20bn to $30bn a year is being spent by rich countries on land in developing countries.guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


    Vote for Green... drinks!!

    Interested in a monthly or bi-monthly get-together in Zürich to meet up and talk green?

    Make sure you register your vote under "Polls": http://www.amazee.com/node/2734/poll/122
    Hall of fame
    Hall of fame

Help
Goal: Climate change can seem daunting at an individual level so this project seeks to create a forum to share and discuss news, views, events, and solutions specific to the effect of climate change within Switzerland. The focus is on what we, as individuals, can do, while also keeping informed on what big business, organizations and governments are (or are not!) doing to help.
328 days online / 24321 views
26
Members
0
Fundraising
Public
Publicity: Public
Project joining rules
Joining: Open for all
Alliances
Project is part of an alliance

Google AdSense