Sunday, December 6, 2009

'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

EPA Orders Employees to Remove YouTube Climate Video

Re-posted from Twighlight Earth.

The Environmental Protection Agency has ordered two of its attorneys to remove a video they posted on YouTube about problems with climate change legislation.

The couple had received clearance for posting the video but EPA took issue with its content following publication of an op-ed piece by the two in The Washington Post on October 31.



On November 5, 2009, EPA ethics officials ordered the two veteran employees to –

  • “Remove your climate change video from You Tube by the close of business on Friday, November 6, 2009″;
  • “Edit your You Tube video…by:
    • Removing the language starting at 1:06 min – ‘Our opinions are based on
      more than 20 years each working as attorneys at the U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency in the San Francisco Regional Office.’
    • Removing the images of EPA’s building starting at 1:06 min…
    • Remove [sic] the language starting at 6:30 min – ‘In my work at EPA,
      I’ve been overseeing California’s cap-and-trade and offset programs for
      more than 20 years.’”
  • “All future requests for approval of an outside writing activity must be accompanied by a
    draft of the document that is the subject of the approval request…”
“EPA is abusing ethics rules to gag two conscientious employees who have every right to speak out as citizens,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who has re-posted the original video and its script. “EPA reversed itself because someone in headquarters had a tantrum about their Washington Post essay.”

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Food waste - to - energy

This is a great way to close the cycle! San Francisco area utility turns food waste into green energy. My friend Andy Sarjahani did a fabulous presentation at the American Dietetic Association Food and Nutrition Conference on Food Waste. Glad to see San Francisco take the lead. Now, if I could just get my neighborhood to learn how to recycle an the city to pick it up consistently. Argh.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Abused calves at Vermont veal slaughterhouse

Not for the faint at heart. USDA ordered this plant to close this week. Thank God.

Issue 2 in Ohio - Livestock Care Standards

I couldn't let the day go by without blogging on Issue 2 voting going on Ohio. Today marks a huge change to the Ohio constitution that will create a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry. While this sounds like a great idea, the "board" will be comprised of

thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department at an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative,

1o of whom are chosen by the Governor, and the others appointed by other government officials. Those who understand the political clout of "big agriculture" know where this is headed. The move is said to be the largest "power grab" by special interests to control the way animals are produced since, well, rBGH.

The establishment has pulled out all of the stops to get the votes: good for the economy, good for the food supply, good for safe food...in fact "Safe Local Ohio Food" is the industry sponsored (Ohioan's for Livestock Care) propaganda page which has done a great job of studying "green", "progressive", and "good food" websites. The bottom line: big agriculture business in Ohio wants business as usual and right now, it feels a real threat to their bottom line. Seven states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon—have banned the use of inhumane confinement devices for farm animals. Ohio is trying to set a precedent before they are next.

Here are the Humane Society of the United States Six Reasons to Vote No on Issue 2.

Here are the Ohioan's for Livestock Care Seven Reasons to Vote Yes on Issue 2.

Here is Progressive Ohio's standpoint.

It's heating up in Ohio. I will be listening to AgriTalk radio today to hear the results, as well as monitoring Ballot-opedia -- my new favorite site!

*****UPDATE******

As of 8:45 PM EST Issue 2 was leading with 69% of the votes tallied.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

The Friedman Sprout

The Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy (my school) at Tufts University has published their (our) inaugural issue of The Friedman Sprout student newspaper.

The theme is surviving finals, but there are other interesting articles. I contributed in the Kathleen's Korner Column, highlighting the news of Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan, as well as an Opt-ed -- "Why isn't nutrition part of the healthcare debate?"

Other columns include recipes, restaurant reviews, alumi spotlights, and tips on health and wellness.

To subscribe to the monthly paper email "subscribe" to friedmansprout@gmail.com.

Pepsi Raw

Thanks to my friend Chuck for sending me Pepsi's new shenanigans. Pepsi Raw is the new trial run of products by the muliti-national corporation Pepsi.

I am a little unsure about the target audience: the health conscious? the elite? the gullible?
This is cola made with sparkling water and naturally sourced ingredients. That means no artificial flavours, sweeteners, preservatives, or colours.

With its lighter sparkle and unique ingredients such as apple and natural plant extracts, it has a cleaner, fresher taste that’s not only great on its own, but also makes a fantastic mixer. So if you’re someone who appreciates premium spirits, RAW is the perfect accompaniment as it allows the individual flavour of the spirit to cut through.
I am a little unsure what "naturally sourced ingredients" means. So they may be derived from plants, but what is the relevance?

The ingredients:
Sparkling water (bubbles) --no sure the difference between carbonated water, but okay.
Cane Sugar (sugar cane) -- okay...no HFCS, but I laugh that sugar is now being hustled as a marketable choice. I would be interested to know where they get their sugar from. (A 2004 report by WWF, titled “Sugar and the Environment,” shows that sugar may be responsible for more biodiversity loss than any other crop, due to its destruction of habitat to make way for plantations, its intensive use of water for irrigation, its heavy use of agricultural chemicals, and the polluted wastewater that is routinely discharged in the sugar production process.)
Apple extract -- fruit serving? does it count?
Colour- (plain caramel) derived from sugar thanks to the Malliard effect-- emphasis on "plain" ?
Natural Plant Extracts -- including natural caffeine, kola nut extract (from the rain forest in Africa)
TarTaric Acid (bunch of grapes), citric and lactic acid -- what's soda without some acid!?
Gum Arabic- Acacia tree branch & Xanthan gum -- how exotic.

And you have a "Natural Born Cola," and I have a headache.