quinta-feira, 27 de novembro de 2014

7 Billion Beasts

       
7 Billion BeastsAfrica"s a mess. Doesn"t hardly matter what horrid scourge you"re looking for, Africa"s got it: genocide, civil war, systematic rape, dictators, corruption ... not that Asia is any better. Asia"s got every foul blight Africa has, plus the largest concentration of religious extremism on the planet. Western Asia is blowing itself up—with plenty of American help—while eastern Asia is throwing up world-class polluteries almost faster than Americans can buy the cheap crap that finances them.
Credits:WikipediaAnd South America, what a mess. Rain forest comes down while more slums go up. Death squads, guerrilla insurrections, indigenous people being exterminated, drug wars ... one hell of a mess.
On the surface, Europe looks better. But keep in mind, it was Europeans who figured out how to slaughter more people, and do it faster, than even the most evil geniuses would have dreamt of just a century ago.
Let's face it, humanity is a mess. Even here in Wal-Mart country, we can't get our bridges fixed or our kids properly educated. If we Yanks have accomplished nothing else, we have proven there is no correlation whatsoever between a high standard of living and intelligence, so let's not be patting ourselves on the back while we watch the rest of the world crumble. A few more droughts, another big depression and who can guarantee we won't be butchering one another for the protein value?
Yet, as messed up as we are, there's one thing we're absolutely fantastic at. All of us—Africans, Asians, Americans (South and North)—if you don't count fungal spores and bacteria, no other species can compete with us in the propagation department. We can propagate like nobody's business. We may no longer have the ambition to read a book, learn the positions of our political candidates, teach our kids respect or figure out what to do with our trash, but we can sure as hell have babies. We are so good at having babies, in fact, there will soon be—by the year 2012, according to a report just issued by the U.S. Census Bureau—7 billion humans on Earth. Let that sink in. Seven. Billion. People.
Urban area. Credits: WikipediaEven more astounding than the sheer number of people running around screwing everything up even more than it already is, is the time it took to add another billion to the fold. In 1999, there were a piddling 6 billion humans, so we're talking 13 years here, fellow baby machines. Thirteen years to accomplish what it took our ancestors 10,000 years to do. Wow, if only our sewage systems worked as well as our reproductive organs, eh?
As you have certainly guessed, I'm being sarcastic. I don't now, nor did I ever, consider it much of an accomplishment to produce offspring. Damn near anyone can do it, and damn near everyone does.
In columns past, I have spoken of how over-population is the common denominator of virtually every other environmental and social ill bedeviling our world. Didn't do any good. People just kept on having babies. Some people have so many babies they get a five-minute interview with a gushing teevee personality, have you seen 'em? In some circles, couples who spew out babies like rabbit turds are regarded as special.
I have come to believe that geometrical progression is simply too complicated a concept for most Homo Sapiens to include in their family planning. And frankly, I'm caring less and less about what will become of a species so blind to the planetary effects of exponential growth that they threaten to push everything outside of themselves into oblivion.
Galapagos Albatross. Critically Endangered (IUCN 3.1). Credits: WikipediaBut a letter in the Idaho Statesman two weeks ago articulated what I fear is the true level of selfishness among far too many of our neighbors, be they in Singapore, Saudi Arabia or—as in the case of the man who wrote the letter—Star. His overall point was that nothing should stand in the way of his energy needs. "Sorry folks," he wrote, "but my well-being and the well-being of my family will trump an animal, even if it's the last animal on Earth."
I suppose this man might be commended for his candor. It's not every person who will so openly and venally argue that lower gas prices or reliable air-conditioning is worth every polar bear or sea otter in the galaxy. Yet I suspect there are plenty—from India to Africa to Brazil to Melba—who would share his sentiment.
Sadly, he may not have long to wait for that "last animal on Earth." (I omit cockroaches and cows from this discussion as cockroaches seem to be perfectly content with us being such profligate pigs, and we'll always find a way to produce ground chuck for those who gotta have it.) Particularly since Europeans started spreading across the globe like mange, mankind has collided with the animal kingdom like a Texas-sized meteor.
But it's one thing to learn the last dodo bird, for instance, was killed 300 years before modern sensibilities might have saved them, and quite another to imagine the world without even one manatee or jaguar or panda—creatures which will be on our collective consciences if they disappear. So I thought I would end this column with a few simple numbers—numbers maybe even the most self-absorbed can grasp. If you will, think of them as box scores in the game of what makes a planet worth inhabiting. I doubt the fellow from Star will appreciate the degree of melancholy such dismal figures represent to those of us who can't fathom a world with nothing but his kind in it. But hopefully, his children will.
Atlantic goliath grouper. Critically Endangered (IUCN 2.3). Credits: WikipediaAt this moment, there are 720 mountain gorillas and 30,000 lions left in Africa. Asia is down to less than 200 Siberian tigers and less than 3,000 Komodo dragons. There are no more than 6,000 blue whales left in all the oceans or 150 golden lion tamarins left in all of South America. Java has between 40 and 50 remaining Javan rhinos, and ...
Hold on. This is taking too long, and the last thing we have is time. Let me approach this another way: If you count all the wild mammals bigger than a sewer rat, then add on all the world's remaining reptiles, amphibians and birds, is it so impossible to imagine the total you get won't come to anywhere near 7,000,000,000?
As their numbers go down, ours continue to climb. Thousands of species are but a step away from the tar pit of extinction because humans don't have the sense to slow their baby making down. And I can't help but note the further removed each succeeding generation gets from any sort of connection with those wild beings we share the planet with, the more messed up we are. I shudder to think what we'll be like when there's nothing left but us.
Credits: Wikipedia
- See more at: http://www.oceansentry.org/en/506-7-billion-beasts.html#sthash.qQOuF98n.dpuf

The World of 2108

       
The World of 2108By Captain Paul Watson. 

I was asked recently what I thought the world would be like in 100 years. The question was meant to solicit if I am an optimist or a pessimist. The fact is that I am neither an optimist nor am I a pessimist. I am an ecologist which means that I view the world through the eyes of the laws of ecology and I try to do so as objectively as possible. I have faith in the laws of ecology, and I believe that these laws will ensure that the planet takes care of itself for billions of years more as it has for a few billion years already.
I actually find all the hysteria over global warming and climate change to be somewhat amusing. As an environmentalist I was speaking and writing about this problem thirty years ago. Of course my opinions were dismissed then as were other voices of ecological realism and sanity.

It just made sense to me back then that if we pump carbon into the atmosphere in the volumes we have been doing for over a century that there would be serious ecological consequences.

The present annual release of carbon through the combustion of fossil fuels is around 5.6 billion tons in the form of carbon dioxide. The annual release of carbon from deforestation is another 2 to 3 billion tons. The amount of carbon released into the atmosphere from the livestock industry is an additional 1.5 billion tons. The atmosphere presently contains about 750 billion tons of carbon and another 2000 billion tons is contained in organic materials on and in the Earth and in the sea.

Photosynthesis on land absorbs about 100 billion tons of carbon annually. Prior to industrialization the amount of carbon absorbed by living organisms on land and in the seas was pretty much equal to the amount of carbon released by living organisms. The species homo sapiens has changed this by releasing approximately 3 billion tons more carbon annually than can now be absorbed.

An increase in temperature by even 1% centigrade will increase respiration of carbon by 30 to 40%. Absorption however will not be affected by any significant percentage. Thus as the atmosphere gets warmer the effect on global warming will be acceleration and the melting of glaciers and ice caps will accelerate this process even more.

Another factor is that warming of the atmosphere will increase the density of water vapour in the atmosphere. Water vapour is one of the strongest greenhouse gases and an increase in the density of water vapour will accelerate the warming process even faster.

As biota, or the mass of non-human organisms is diminished, the rate of absorption will further decline causing an even greater amount of carbon to be released.

Thus diminishment of biomass diversity is a major factor contributing to global warming.

What makes our present situation so alarming is that we are moving from a relatively slow period of global warming to an accelerated period. Life adapts to slowly changing conditions but adapts with greater difficulty to faster ecological changes. In other words there is little time for transition and what would normally take millennium or centuries to occur will now take place within the context of decades.

Release of carbon through decay of biomass because of increased temperatures will soon exceed the release from fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels was simply the trigger for an even more massive release of carbon stored in the form of vegetation and living organisms. Increased temperatures will lead to more forest fires, more crop failures and changing oceanic currents causing massive planktonic die-offs. Other factors are ozone depletion, and acidification of the oceans.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions and this includes 9% carbon dioxide and 37 percent of all methane released and 65 percent of all nitrous oxide emissions. These emissions exceed those of the entire transportation industry.

Eating a steak contributes more towards global warming than driving a car.

Methane and nitrous oxide are a cause for major concern. Methane has 23 times the global warming potential of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of CO2.

Most of the gases that will be released due to rising temperatures and the thawing of the permafrost will be in the form of methane and water vapour.

Although most people remain ignorant of the organic chemistry of Gaia, the world has woken up and discovered that yes, there is a global warming problem and it is amusing to see just how surprised everyone seems to be about it.

Of course it's too late to do anything about it. Even in the unlikely event that every person in the world decided to not drive a car, ride on an airplane, and carry on with business as usual – there is no stopping the global chemical reactions that we set in motion decades ago. The three C's – the combustion engine, cattle and consumerism have sealed the fate of civilization as we know it.

However despite the writing on the wall we still keep pumping out more and more combustion engines, raising more cattle, and buying more and more material goods. As the poet Leonard Cohen once wrote, "we are locked into our suffering and our pleasures are the seal."

As a species we are material junkies, hooked on oil, meat and luxuries. Let's face it, simple living bicycle riding vegans are still considered to be somewhat odd when in fact they should be the example of how we all should be living.

But back to the question of what kind of world will it be in 2108?

One thing for sure it will be a radically different world than that of today.

We will have long since reached the limits of carrying capacity and resources like oil and rare and once abundant ores will have been exhausted.

The three basic laws of ecology are (1) The law of diversity that eco-systems require diversity of species to be healthy. (2) The law of interdependence meaning that species are interdependent with each other. And (3) the law of finite resources or limits to carrying capacity and limits to growth.

There are limits to growth because there are limits to carrying capacity. If we steal carrying capacity from other species we will contribute to the extinction of more and more species and the removal and diminishment of other species erodes diversity and interdependence.  

Natural history has demonstrated for millions of years that when a species exceeds carrying capacity it will crash. If one of the species that we are closely dependent upon like bees, wheat, rice, etc disappear, our populations will crash.

The protection of diversity is one of the most important responsibilities we have, far more important even than the cure for cancer yet species protection receives less than 1% of every charitable dollar.

Human populations continue to rise and the global world population is now approaching 7 billion. It was 3 billion only 50 years ago. Since the majority of these 7 billion are under 35 and thus of child bearing age it means that the population could double to 14 billion by 2058 and again to 28 billion by 2108.

It won't get that far of course because we have already exceeded global carrying capacity. Every single commercial fishery is in a state of collapse, we have reached peak oil and without oil to provide fertilizer and transportation, world food production will decline. Added to this is the annual losses of topsoil and diminishment of fresh water contributing even further to the destruction of industrial agriculture.

The Bible strangely enough predicts the tools of the ecological apocalypse. The four horsemen were famine, disease, war and civil strife and disorder.

We who are alive today have just lived through the last two most affluent generations in the history of the world. The orgy of materialism that we have enjoyed from 1945 until the present is almost at its end.

We have filled countless landfills with the trash of our excessive life styles, we have stripped life from the oceans and replaced it with plastic and chemicals. In short a combination of rising populations and declining carrying capacity is leading to an ecological collapse.

What does this mean?

In short, it's nothing pleasant. It's a series of events leading to a break-down in carrying capacity meaning the removal of resources that we have grown dependent upon.

Add to this rising sea levels and changing weather conditions and the possibility, rather the ine..vita..bility of the shut down of the Atlantic conveyor and the problems will mount progressively.

Within two decades, we will have completed the destruction of the fishes of the ocean. Wars will be waged over the resources of ..Antarctica.. and wars over water resources will replace the wars over oil resources.

Wars of genocide will erupt around the globe simply because homo sapien is still a primitive hominid and quick to blame every diminishment on any other group of human beings of a different culture or race. Wars of religion will escalate as people attempt to escape ecological reality with inventive anthropocentric pie-in-the-sky fantasies. As energy resources break down so will transportation leading to the end of the global village and the development of tribalism. Tribalism will lead to territorial conflicts or numerous small wars of genocide.

Somewhere in the next fifty years there will be a loss of a pivotal species or species – that will escalate the crash of humanity. Remove the honey bee and agricultural will be devastated. Remove a few species of wheat and rice through blight and worldwide starvation will result with people fighting over fields of potatoes or turnips. Viruses deprived of hosts will be looking for new hosts and human will present a tempting target for these minute masters of survival.

It will be ugly, exceedingly so.

Unlikely? Unrealistic?

Consider 1908. If then, I were to have said then that the coming century would see two horrifically insane world wars, concentration camps, killer epidemics, the nuclear bomb, gas warfare, suicide bombers, AIDS, and George W. Bush, no one would have believed it then either.

1908 was an age of innocence shattered with the eruption of the "war to end all wars" in 1914 and the unleashing of the demons of industrialized hell thanks to the evil genius of the likes of Krupp, Nobel, Mitsubishi, Ford, Hitler, Oppenheimer and Teller.

Yes there were good things that happened. In 1908 woman could not vote in most countries and racism was taken for granted as something natural and acceptable. We did learn a few lessons along the way but overall we learned how to kill more efficiently, and to oppress more ruthlessly, and to exploit nature more rapaciously.

But strangely I predict 2108 will not be a bad time to live for the survivors of our species. By then with populations drastically reduced to less than a billion people, there will be no choice but to adapt to a world without the three C's.

I see a world not unlike the world of 1808 with windmills generating local power, horses, plus bicycles, balloons and sail providing the primary means of transportation, smaller communities and most likely people will have been forced to higher ground by rising sea levels and to cooler underground living allowing for nature to regenerate above ground with species adapting to warmer temperatures.

Without diesel powered ship with industrialized means of exploitation, those remnants of surviving fish populations will begin to flourish again. Hopefully we will still have whales, dolphins, sea-turtles, sharks and sea-birds and in time they will begin to re-populate the seas.

People will be forced to live simpler lives – no more jet planes, cars or ocean liners. Yet we still may maintain knowledge and we may still be able to communicate globally with wind and solar powered generators powering computers and an internet system.

If we are intelligent enough we may even be able to establish a centralized repository of valuable fossil fuels to allow us to continue to orbit satellites for global communication and navigation.

People will look back in disbelief at the waste of fossil fuels on plastic bags, toys and joy-riding in cars and boats.

I see a greener future with people living simpler less stressful lives and re-learning the loss arts of sailing, black-smithing, wood-working, stone masonary etc.

We will still wage war on each other, because we are a violent species, but wars confined to simpler weapons.

There will still be a repository of nuclear bombs and no go areas where former nuclear plants stood but in time they will decay as will the trash of our past mistakes. They will still be dangerous places and will remain dangerous for some time. But as Chernobyl has demonstrated life will adapt.

The global warming threat will have spawned a proliferation of nuke plants by 2015 but they will fail by 2025 when the shortages of fossil fuels will prevent the mining and processing of uranium which actually consumes more fossil fuels than even the oil fired generators. It takes over two thousand tons of pitchblende ore to make one ounce of uranium fuel.

If we are lucky horses will survive and if we are lucky cows will not. Hopefully the world will adapt to an ecologically more friendly vegetarian diet. People will have to learn to live simpler lives without excessive consumerism.

The key to the survival of civilization is to retain the best and discard the worse. Art and music will survive although music will be acoustic and wandering minstrels will replace rock stars. Theatre will survive but motion pictures and television most likely will not. Radio may be the primary form of mass communication powered by wind and solar.

Wind and solar and a solid conservation ethic will provide all the power resources required. Essential machinery like pumps and small electrical tools and conveniences will survive.

The survivors of 2108 will have the wealth of collective human knowledge at their fingertips. Libraries will become popular and large universities will be replaced by small colleges that will stress knowledge and practical technologies.

Massive mindless consumerism will have no place in such a future. All needs will be met by the community market.

The large structures of the past, the malls, and the massive infrastructures will deteriorate. Sites will be cannibalized for practical usage and time and erosion will absorb the scars of the past.

Men and women will once again be able to explore the planet by sail and on foot, by balloon and bicycles. Bicycle and sail technology will prosper. The world will be dotted with millions of small windmills pumping water, grinding grain, running small machines and creating power.

The planet will be quieter and more peaceful and once again we will hear the birds sing and the wind blow through the trees.

Our celebrities will be writers and poets, musicians and artists, explorers and thinkers.

I believe that the future can be a positive one although the birth pangs of such a future will be intensely violent and for fifty years or so, humanity will suffer the effects of the collapse as they strive to adjust and survive. Billions will die from starvation, war, civil violence and disease.

Only a small percentage of people born in the next thirty years will be alive in 2008. The world of 2008 will belong to the children of the survivors and will be born in the latter part of the 21st Century. The world also will hopefully belong to the survivors of other species and with luck we will not destroy more than half of them.

We have survived before. The great plagues of over 800 years ago killed more than survived and the survivors emerged stronger and able to resist future bubonic plagues. There will be those who will resist and survive the plagues of the 21st century also.

Hopefully anthropocentric religions will be abolished. These perversely ignorant ideas are what got us here in the first place – the idea that we are superior to other species and we have absolute dominion over everything and in the end it does not matter because we will all go to some fantasyland in the sky.

If we are to survive as a species we will need to bring the diversity of life into our everyday reality and we will need to live our lives in accordance with the laws of ecology and that will mean protecting diversity, embracing interdependence and realizing that resources are finite and there are limits to our growth.

Perhaps once slapped down to size we may indeed learn our lesson and we won't try   this similar nonsense again.

Of course our species may not survive the next century but one thing for sure – the Earth will abide. It always had and it always will and this major extinction event, the sixth in the entire history of the Earth will be addressed by a healing process of regeneration over the next ten to twenty million years.

One thing I know for sure is that tens of millions of years from now, this planet will still shine like a blue and white gem against the blackness of eternity and that is the image that sustains me and provides me with my optimism.

For all of us will forever be a part of this magnificent rock orbiting this miracle of a life giving sun on the outer arm of this magnificent galaxy within the great mystery of the infinite universe.

2108 – I regret I won't see what the world will be then, but I envy those of our species who will survive and I only hope this second chance to rebuilt civilization will be more successful than the last.

Anthropocentric civilization  is almost dead – long live a biocentric civilization for tomorrow!
- See more at: http://www.oceansentry.org/en/436-the-world-of-2108.html#sthash.ffTfNDty.dpuf

terça-feira, 25 de novembro de 2014

The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom Is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food

November 24, 2014 EnvironmentHealthReviews No Comments
Book Authors: Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald
Reviewed by Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project)
The first researchers to systematically document ill health in livestock, pets, and people living near fracking drill sites were Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald. Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell University, used a case study approach–looking at individual households–to search for possible effects (Bamberger and Oswald 2012).
Many fracking chemicals are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors or other classes of toxins (Colborn et al. 2011). Bamberger and Oswald’s studies, carried out during the ongoing fracking boom, uncovered serious adverse effects including respiratory, reproductive, and growth-related problems in animals and a spectrum of symptoms in humans that they termed “shale gas syndrome”. Ultimately, their research led them to consider fracking’s broader implications for farming and the food system (Bamberger and Oswald 2012 and 2014).
Their new book, The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom Is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food describes the results of this research. However, it is by showing the pervasiveness of fracking’s harmful effects on the lives of the householders that Bamberger and Oswald best convey its true costs.
The Real Cost of Fracking
THE REAL COST OF FRACKING
Why Animals?
The strategy of including animals in their research was based on the supposition that the shorter lifecycles and higher exposure of animals to contaminants makes them “early warning systems” for environmental hazards (Reif 2011, Rabinowitz et al. 2010, Van der Schalie et al. 1999). Further, since these were often food animals, exposed or sickened animals could directly become human food system hazards.
Detailed Case Studies
In their 2012 publication, Bamberger and Oswald compiled the results of 24 case studies from six gas-drilling U.S. states. They documented health incidents experienced by humans and animals living near drill sites and also identified possible exposure routes to fracking chemicals. They published this data and have discussed its implications in scientific papers (Bamberger and Oswald 2012; Bamberger and Oswald 2014a).
The Real Cost of Fracking describes clearly these findings. However, the book is organized around the firsthand experiences of the animals and people behind seven of these case studies. These experiences include the loss of calves and the imposition of a herd quarantine due to a wastewater spill, bulls and Newfoundland dogs with ongoing reproductive problems, and horses on steroids due to respiratory problems. The authors meet children with elevated arsenic levels, adults experiencing dramatic weight loss, and whole families suffering from “shale gas syndrome” (their name for the combination of burning eyes, sore throat, headaches, nosebleeds, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes often experienced by the people in their case studies). Some residents cannot enter their homes without becoming seriously ill and others have lost their animal breeding or farming-based livelihoods.
During their research, Bamberger and Oswald also hear how government indifference and industry tactics compound people’s health and financial problems. These tactics include secrecy about fracking chemicals, which hinders effective medical treatment (McDermott-Levy et al. 2003). Others include harassment and intimidation of residents who complain.
Obstacles to Scientific Research and “Proof of Harm”
While telling these stories, Bamberger and Oswald describe the complexities of carrying out research on active industrial sites operated by a secretive industry. Non-disclosure agreements, for example, hide potentially useful data. Whenever fracking victims are financially compensated for their losses, they often are forced to sign such agreements, preventing them from revealing fracking-related illnesses or other losses to the public.
Ideally, as proof of harm, researchers would be able to link specific chemicals to specific health symptoms.  This would require chemical testing to prove that a chemical was absent before fracking started and present afterwards. Researchers would then need to establish a probable exposure route (i.e. drinking water contaminated with the chemical). And finally, independent health monitoring would confirm that signs of illness were absent before chemical exposure and present after.
In addition to non-disclosure agreements, The Real Cost of Fracking highlights several further barriers to establishing such links. First there is no provision for systematic chemical testing of air, soil, or water on drill sites and their surroundings.  Nor is there systematic health monitoring of any kind. Furthermore, without full disclosure of the chemicals used at each specific drill site, researchers, veterinarians, and doctors can’t know for sure which chemicals or health effects to test for.
The systematic large-scale health and environmental testing needed can only be carried out with the support of government and regulators. To serve the public interest, it must be carried out by a trustworthy source and the results made freely available. Perversely, having failed to require any such tests, government officials and regulators join with industry to claim there is no “proof of harm” from fracking.
Fracking Correlated with Ill Health
Despite these obstacles, Bamberger and Oswald’s results showed local residents experienced new and serious harm to their health, wellbeing, and livelihoods after fracking began. They were able to document that “animals and humans have symptoms that correlate in time with gas and oil drilling operations.” In many cases they could also identify likely exposure routes to fracking toxins. Well water is one possible route, and the authors note research by Osborn et al. (2011) that found “water wells in areas near shale gas operations have been contaminated by methane that has the isotopic signature of shale gas.” These results suggest that, in addition to methane released by fracking, other more toxic chemicals could contaminate wells.
Strengthening the correlation between fracking and ill health, Bamberger and Oswald found health clinics in Pennsylvania and Colorado that reported patients living near drill sites who also experienced “shale gas syndrome.” Furthermore, since the publication of their results, other researchers have reported adverse health correlated with fracking (Bamberger and Oswald 2014b; Macey et al. 2014; McDermott-Levy et al. 2013; Hill 2013; Food and Water Watch Report 2013). However, it is likely these studies do not identify all of fracking’s harmful effects. In particular, the animal reproductive problems documented by Bamberger and Oswald suggest that people living and working near drill sites also need testing for reproductive and other long-term health effects.
Farmland, Food and Fracking
Bamberger and Oswald excel at conveying the harmful effects of fracking on local residents. However, synthesis of their data with that of other researchers leads them to a much wider concern. Their analysis suggests widespread fracking will have a major negative impact on farming and food quality in the U.S., and perhaps worldwide.
Fracking operations are often located on or near farms. Thus pasture, cropland, streams, ponds, and wells are all at risk of contamination by toxins used or released during fracking. It is known that leaks and spills can occur during well drilling, high pressure hydraulic fracturing, or waste transportation. Exposure routes also include leaky well casings and intentional farmland waste storage or disposal. Animals can drink contaminated water and graze contaminated pasture. Crops can be grown on contaminated soil. Furthermore, poor air quality can impact animal health. Air quality is impaired by the increased road traffic, open wastewater lagoons, chemicals released during intentional gas flaring, and ongoing presence of benzene at drill sites.
These food system threats are compounded by the pooling of products in the current industrial food system and the lack of appropriate testing and regulation of the food supply. In addition, financial pressures encourage farmers to let sick animals enter the food system. Because it impacts crops and livestock through land, air, and water, Bamberger and Oswald emphasize fracking has implications for both industrial agriculture and small-scale farming.
A Powerful Warning
Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald join other important scientist-authors who felt compelled to speak directly to the public. Their book, like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Sandra Steingraber’sLiving Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment, and T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study, warns about an entirely preventable health and environmental crisis that is being ignored, or concealed, by those in power. Such books have a special value, due in part to the quality of their writing and in part to the authority and integrity of the authors and the depth of their knowledge.
As new research documents the fracking boom’s contribution to global climate change, it has become clear fracking’s climate impact is much greater than originally claimed (Howarth 2014; Schneising et al. 2014). Now, with The Real Cost of Fracking, Bamberger and Oswald give voice to those whose lives and health suffer already under that boom – and offer a forewarning to the rest of us.

segunda-feira, 24 de novembro de 2014

Amazing...
It would take an area of 254km2 filled with solar panels to power the entire world.

E a grana da Petrobras? As formigas comeram!

Dilma não viu com a antecedência desejável um dos piores negócios feitos pela empresa.
Ricardo Noblat
Há muitas perguntas sobre o escândalo da Petrobras que suplicam por respostas.
A mais óbvia: é possível que Dilma ignorasse o mar de lama capaz de afogar a empresa que ela sempre controlou desde o primeiro governo do presidente Lula?
Pois antes de suceder José Dirceu na chefia da Casa Civil, Dilma foi ministra das Minas e Energia. Presidiu o Conselho de Administração da Petrobras entre 2003 e 2010.
Nada de relevante se faz na Petrobras sem autorização prévia do Conselho.
Ao deixar o Conselho em março de 2010 para concorrer à presidência da República, Dilma comentou que se sentia feliz pelo que fizera.
“É um orgulho passar pelo Conselho de Administração da Petrobras, e maior ainda presidi-lo”, disse. “Você tem uma nova visão do Brasil. Vê a riqueza do Brasil”.
De fato, ela viu. O que não viu, como diria mais tarde, foi por culpa dos outros. Elas é inocente. Completamente.
Não viu com a antecedência desejável um dos piores negócios feitos pela Petrobras – a compra da refinaria Pasadena, nos Estados Unidos.
Ela pertencia à empresa belga Astra Oil, que a comprara em 2005 por US$ 42,5 milhões.
Um ano depois, a Petrobras pagou US$ 360 milhões. E só por 50% da refinaria. Três anos depois, pagou mais US$ 639 milhões pelos outros 50%. Demais, não?
Os jornais belgas celebraram a venda da Pasadena à Petrobras como o negócio do século. Para a Astra Oil, é claro.
Dilma alegou no ano passado que se baseara em “informações incompletas” e em um parecer técnico “falho” para aprovar a compra da primeira metade da refinaria.
E nós com isso?
O Procurador Geral da República aceitou a alegação e culpou a diretoria da Petrobras pelo mau negócio. O Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) também livrou a cara de Dilma.
Foi Lula quem disse que Dilma era melhor gestora do que ele. Imagine!
No dia 29 de setembro de 2009, segundo a edição mais recente da revista VEJA, Paulo Roberto Costa, então diretor de Abastecimento da Petrobras, informou a Dilma por e-mail que o TCU havia recomendado ao Congresso a paralisação das obras das refinarias Abreu e Lima, em Pernambuco, e Getúlio Vargas, no Paraná, e de um terminal petrolífero no Espírito Santo.
Esquisito comportamento, o de Paulo Roberto. Por que se dirigiu a Dilma se era subordinado a José Sérgio Gabrielle, presidente da Petrobras?
No dia seguinte, Dilma reclamou de público da determinação do TCU de paralisar obras do governo federal: “É impossível a paralisação. Os custos são grandes”. Lula deu-lhe razão.
Quase quatro meses depois, Lula vetou uma decisão do Congresso que suspendia a execução de quatro obras da Petrobras salpicadas de fortes indícios de corrupção apontados pelo TCU.
Em momento algum, Lula falou em corrupção. Ao justificar seu veto, preferiu se referir vagamente a “pendências”, informa o jornal O Estado de S. Paulo.
O veto acabou mantido pelo Congresso de folgada e bovina maioria governista.
Graças à decisão de Lula, a Petrobras injetou mais de R$ 13 bilhões nas refinarias de Abreu e Lima e Getúlio Vargas, e em complexos petroquímicos do Rio de Janeiro e de Barra do Riacho, no Espírito Santo.
As quatro obras foram superfaturadas. A de Abreu e Lima começou custando R$ 2 bilhões. Está por R$ 20 bilhões.
Nos governos de Lula e Dilma, a Petrobras virou o maior cliente das empreiteiras cujos donos e principais executivos acabaram presos há 10 dias.
Por sinal, Lula viaja pelo mundo à custa das empreiteiras e na condição de lobista delas.
O TCU calcula que a Petrobras nos últimos quatro anos fechou negócios no valor de R$ 70 bilhões. Desse total, cerca de 60% não dependeram de licitação. De nenhuma licitação. A lei permite que a Petrobras proceda assim.
Um negócio no Espírito Santo, por exemplo, rendeu à empreiteira Mendes Júnior o adicional de R$ 65 milhões pagos pela Petrobras por causa da saúva-preta, uma espécie de formiga em extinção cuja descoberta teria atrasado a obra em 15 dias.
Sauva (Foto: Arquivo Google)

sábado, 22 de novembro de 2014

CLIMA

Aumenta probabilidade de El Niño acontecer em 2015

Gabriel Garcia - 
Reprodução
O Oceano Pacífico está dando indícios de que o fenômeno El Niño começa a surgir, de acordo relatório divulgado nesta terça-feira (18) pelo Escritório Australiano de Meteorologia.

Os cientistas aumentaram o nível de atenção de seu sistema de monitoramento do fenômeno, indicando que existe uma probabilidade de 70%, pelo menos, do El Niño acontcer.

O fenômeno natural é um aquecimento da temperatura da água do Oceano Pacífico, que ocorre uma vez a cada três anos, causando falta de chuva em algumas regiões do planeta e enchentes em outras.

Os meteorologistas do governo da Austrália afirmam que mesmo que o El Niño termine não acontecendo neste ano, são grandes as chances que efeitos análogos ao do fenômeno aconteçam em algumas partes do mundo.