Environmentalists winning the Nobel Peace Prize, have we reached the point of waging war over arable land and other resources?
By: Ringo Bones
Today, anti war protestors in America carry signs that read “No Blood For Oil”. In a few years time if we don’t do anything to protect our environment, those signs will read “No Blood For Safe Drinking Water” and believe me, that is NOT a “romantic” notion for the “warmongers” in Capitol Hill or the Pentagon. Will the elected GOP / Republican Party politicians authorize an invasion and occupation of Brazil in order to save the Amazon rain forest 10 years from now? I just hope that the worlds powers-that-be will heed the advice of the IPCC and Al Gore to do their part in limiting the impact of climate change.
Growing up in the 1980’s, there isn’t a day that goes by without hearing news coverage about the swiftly declining state of our environment. From major man-made disasters like the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker running aground, to the burning of the Amazon rain forest. I always wondered why the world’s governments have waited 20 or so years in tackling our planet’s various environmental problems.
Now in 2007(better late than never), Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri with the 3,000 or so scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC were awarded for this years Nobel Peace Prize. They were awarded for their “heroic” efforts in spreading awareness on the dangers of climate change, global warming and the sea level rise. Since the announcement, a number of “influential people” namely Captains-of-Industry and some politicians have doubts whether the Nobel Committee's decision to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC because these two don’t deserve the prize. Some of them said that Al Gore is nothing more than a slick showman while the IPCC –to them - deserve a prize for being a well run organization but not the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Well, that’s those “influential people’s” decisions. To me Al Gore and the IPCC truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Because what the two are essentially doing is laying out plans to limit the impact of climate change on the global economy. IPCC and AL Gore just laid out the groundwork on how future conflicts caused by climate change will be reduced in scale and / or will be even eliminated. Just as Muhammad Yunus deserved his own Nobel Peace Prize because he laid out the groundwork for tackling the root cause of extremism and militancy namely poverty and the lack of income generating opportunities.
I’m just glad that those “influential people” that criticized Al Gore and the IPCC for receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace were not around during my time in high school. Those people would had been over me when I nominated the Afghan Mujahedin as Time magazine’s “Person of the Year” in 1987 for their valiant efforts of resisting Soviet occupation. I even convinced my teacher and a classroom full of people on my case. This was a class project that gained a life of it’s own after President Corazon Aquino became Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”. Mind you this was before I got hold of Osama bin Laden’s or General Abdul Rashid Dostum’s dossier, or knew which from which. Perfect tense doesn’t necessarily mean perfect sense when it comes to history.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Monday, October 15, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Earth’s Ozone Layer: Safe at Last?
The Montreal Protocol might be working since scientists had observed a steady decline of ozone destroying chemicals in our atmosphere since the 1990’s, is this good news for the ozone layer?
By: Ringo Bones
Compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the harm that could be caused by climate change. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate (mission?) of eliminating existing chemicals then in use in the industry and in domestic situations that are harmful to the Earth’s ozone layer was perceived as an insurmountable task – by both critics and proponents alike- 20 years ago.
The Montreal Protocol, whose full official title is the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a treaty that was established on September 16, 1987 at Montreal, Canada by a 25 nation body who first signed on. Presently, 168 nations are now parties to the accord. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate was to set limits on the production of ozone depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and related substances that release chlorine or bromine to the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. But first, a brief description on how the ozone layer of our planet works.
The Earth’s ozone layer –or the part that filters harmful UV rays out- is found in the upper part of the stratosphere at 40 to 50 kilometers up. The ozone found at ground level is a pollutant. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Allotrope is an element in two or more different forms usually in the same phase like the element carbon that can both exist as coal, or a diamond depending on how it’s atoms are arranged. Unlike the ordinary atmospheric i.e. diatomic oxygen that we breathe whose molecular structure is composed of two oxygen atoms, while ozone has three. Even though both are composed of the same elemental oxygen, ozone can irritate –even damage- our lungs in long term exposure. While monatomic oxygen i.e. gaseous oxygen existing as single atoms plays a part in providing color in the aurora borealis and australis as it gets hit by charged particles from the sun. Every time an ozone molecule gets hit by an energetic ultraviolet radiation from the sun like UV-B (cancer causing), UV-C (chromosomal and immune system damage) and UV-A (tans the skin but still harmful in excess), it breaks apart into a diatomic oxygen molecule and a monatomic oxygen. Oddly enough, the same harmful UV rays allow the ripped oxygen molecules to recombine into ozone thus the cycle continues. This is how ozone absorbs UV radiation. While ozone destroying chemicals that reach the stratosphere also break ozone molecules apart, the bad part is the ozone molecule broken by this method didn’t perform it’s duty of absorbing UV rays. If enough ozone is broken apart chemically, levels of harmful UV rays reaching to the Earth’s surface could increase.
The biggest hurdle in the total manufacture and utilization ban of ozone destroying chemicals is that the “miracles” of contemporary society like refrigerants / keeping things cool and putting out “technical” fires will be seriously affected by the ban. The haloalkane / BCF fire suppressant halon had saved countless fighter pilots that served during the Vietnam War. An F-105 Thunderchief survived being hit by a Soviet made surface-to-air missile to return to her home air base thanks to the halon fire suppression system. Next to the modern ejection seat, halon is the modern jet pilot’s “other best friend.”
Under the Montreal Protocol, the ozone depleting potential or ODP, of any substance is measured with respect to an equal molecular mass of CFC-11, which is assigned a value of 1.0. Most other CFC’s have an ODP rating that ranges from 0.5 to about 1.3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which are being used as transitional replacements until 2020 for CFC’s in refrigeration, have ODP’s that are generally less than 0.5. The problem with hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFC’s is that HCFC’s are a very efficient greenhouse gas because of its high specific heat rating. Thus it’s use could contribute to global warming while it’s molecular structure is still under investigation if it chemically breaks down fast enough before it reaches into the stratospheric regions to affect the ozone layer. Hydrofluorocarbons, which are also replacing CFC’s as refrigerants, have an ODP of zero. The molecular structure of HFC’s allows it to chemically break down before it drifts high into the ozone layer. The caveats of hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s is that the refrigeration system that use HFC’s as a refrigerant are inefficient compared to ones that use CFC or HCFC i.e. it consumes more electricity. Also, ozone-depleting potentials are based on existing scientific knowledge and are to be reviewed and revised periodically. Thus the ODP rating of HFC's could change in the future.
An article published in the March 5, 2007 edition of Science Now about the findings that chlorine based ozone destroying agents are in decline. But the scientists conducting the study are still wary about the future recovery status of our ozone layer because bromine based ozone destroying agents can not yet be tracked with certainty as easily as chlorine based agents using current procedures. The good news is that the preliminary findings suggest that if current preventive measures on ozone depleting chemicals continue, there will be a marked improvement on the status of the Earth’s ozone layer 50 years from now. All of humanity now lives in hope.
By: Ringo Bones
Compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the harm that could be caused by climate change. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate (mission?) of eliminating existing chemicals then in use in the industry and in domestic situations that are harmful to the Earth’s ozone layer was perceived as an insurmountable task – by both critics and proponents alike- 20 years ago.
The Montreal Protocol, whose full official title is the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a treaty that was established on September 16, 1987 at Montreal, Canada by a 25 nation body who first signed on. Presently, 168 nations are now parties to the accord. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate was to set limits on the production of ozone depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and related substances that release chlorine or bromine to the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. But first, a brief description on how the ozone layer of our planet works.
The Earth’s ozone layer –or the part that filters harmful UV rays out- is found in the upper part of the stratosphere at 40 to 50 kilometers up. The ozone found at ground level is a pollutant. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Allotrope is an element in two or more different forms usually in the same phase like the element carbon that can both exist as coal, or a diamond depending on how it’s atoms are arranged. Unlike the ordinary atmospheric i.e. diatomic oxygen that we breathe whose molecular structure is composed of two oxygen atoms, while ozone has three. Even though both are composed of the same elemental oxygen, ozone can irritate –even damage- our lungs in long term exposure. While monatomic oxygen i.e. gaseous oxygen existing as single atoms plays a part in providing color in the aurora borealis and australis as it gets hit by charged particles from the sun. Every time an ozone molecule gets hit by an energetic ultraviolet radiation from the sun like UV-B (cancer causing), UV-C (chromosomal and immune system damage) and UV-A (tans the skin but still harmful in excess), it breaks apart into a diatomic oxygen molecule and a monatomic oxygen. Oddly enough, the same harmful UV rays allow the ripped oxygen molecules to recombine into ozone thus the cycle continues. This is how ozone absorbs UV radiation. While ozone destroying chemicals that reach the stratosphere also break ozone molecules apart, the bad part is the ozone molecule broken by this method didn’t perform it’s duty of absorbing UV rays. If enough ozone is broken apart chemically, levels of harmful UV rays reaching to the Earth’s surface could increase.
The biggest hurdle in the total manufacture and utilization ban of ozone destroying chemicals is that the “miracles” of contemporary society like refrigerants / keeping things cool and putting out “technical” fires will be seriously affected by the ban. The haloalkane / BCF fire suppressant halon had saved countless fighter pilots that served during the Vietnam War. An F-105 Thunderchief survived being hit by a Soviet made surface-to-air missile to return to her home air base thanks to the halon fire suppression system. Next to the modern ejection seat, halon is the modern jet pilot’s “other best friend.”
Under the Montreal Protocol, the ozone depleting potential or ODP, of any substance is measured with respect to an equal molecular mass of CFC-11, which is assigned a value of 1.0. Most other CFC’s have an ODP rating that ranges from 0.5 to about 1.3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which are being used as transitional replacements until 2020 for CFC’s in refrigeration, have ODP’s that are generally less than 0.5. The problem with hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFC’s is that HCFC’s are a very efficient greenhouse gas because of its high specific heat rating. Thus it’s use could contribute to global warming while it’s molecular structure is still under investigation if it chemically breaks down fast enough before it reaches into the stratospheric regions to affect the ozone layer. Hydrofluorocarbons, which are also replacing CFC’s as refrigerants, have an ODP of zero. The molecular structure of HFC’s allows it to chemically break down before it drifts high into the ozone layer. The caveats of hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s is that the refrigeration system that use HFC’s as a refrigerant are inefficient compared to ones that use CFC or HCFC i.e. it consumes more electricity. Also, ozone-depleting potentials are based on existing scientific knowledge and are to be reviewed and revised periodically. Thus the ODP rating of HFC's could change in the future.
An article published in the March 5, 2007 edition of Science Now about the findings that chlorine based ozone destroying agents are in decline. But the scientists conducting the study are still wary about the future recovery status of our ozone layer because bromine based ozone destroying agents can not yet be tracked with certainty as easily as chlorine based agents using current procedures. The good news is that the preliminary findings suggest that if current preventive measures on ozone depleting chemicals continue, there will be a marked improvement on the status of the Earth’s ozone layer 50 years from now. All of humanity now lives in hope.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Does Anyone Need Climate Change Insurance?
Should we all go out and purchase “Climate Change Insurance” –like Life and Car Insurance- to protect our beachfront properties of the inevitable if-and-when?
By: Vanessa Uy
Like the establishment of the US Environmental Protection Agency back in 1970, there -as of yet- no existing legal precedents that allow –let alone to regulate- the sale of “Climate Change Insurance” policies to the average homeowner. Or maybe a homeowners insurance policy with a proviso for climate change / global warming caused damage "payout." These are quite as rare as "hen's teeth" but in Germany, the insurance community is abuzz with activity from Munich Re paying storm damage claims. I mean average because how many of us could afford the insurance premiums of Lloyd’s of London style insurance companies that provides coverage to risk whose mathematical evaluation borders on the non-existent? Also, the existing conservative political climate in the United States could easily allow existing insurance companies to classify the negative effects resulting from climate change –like sea level rise and increased frequency of hurricanes- as “Acts of God” which almost all existing insurance companies around the world won’t settle. And finally, is it wise to use the funds generated from “Carbon Offsetting” that’s already slated to bankroll sustainable / green development programs in “poor” countries be used as funds i.e. as an ethical form of "hedge funds" to settle the damages resulting from Climate Change?
Ever since “modern” insurance companies were established, they declared that the first essential factor in insurance is that the element of gambling must not be present. Since then, insurance companies had been eliminating the “element of gambling” by making it possible –through mathematics- to make accurate and scientific calculations of the extent of the hazard, so as to charge a fair premium. This is why it is important to study all the available scientific data to properly gauge the extent of Climate Change –now and in the future. The study can also be used to gauge if the risk must be important enough to warrant insurance. To make such a venture economically viable, the insurance company must have a large number of risks –spread out geographically- so that it will not have a concentration of risks in one area. And finally, the cost of the insurance –i.e. premiums- must be within the reach of a large number of people.
A couple of leading authorities –namely Michael Schlesinger and Natalia Andronova- professors of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says that low cost climate-change insurance could help ensure a better future. By implementing a “Carbon Tax” of five US cents per gallon of gasoline and gradually increasing the tax over the next 30 years is the optimal solution, the researchers report. “You can think of the tax as a low- cost insurance policy that protects against climate change,” said Michael Schlesinger. The policy premiums –according to Professor Schlesinger- could be used to develop alternative energy technologies. Doing a little now to mitigate long-term climate change would cost much less than doing nothing and making adjustments in the future.
Because mitigation would impose immediate costs, with any long –term benefit unknown, some scientists and policy-makers have argued that nothing should be done until the “uncertainty surrounding the climate issue” is substantially reduced. But Professor Schlesinger says:” By then, however, it may be too late to and we will have foreclosed certain options. Rather, the uncertainty is the very reason we should implement a climate policy in the near term.”
Professor Michael Schlesinger’s idea of a taxation-bankrolled Climate Change insurance is somewhat similar to a State Insurance where state funds –i.e. tax revenues- are organized for the insurance of the compensation risk. To me, this is more or less similar to Social Security insurance. Like state funds, a government controlled Climate Change insurance has the advantages of costing much less than that of private organizations because no commissions are paid to brokers or agents and the work is handled by state employees. Also, some state funds may not emphasize the prevention of losses. Finally, if the premiums collected are insufficient to pay losses, the state may have to make up the difference if permitted by law.
Despite of all the rigmarole and red tape surrounding the establishment of a Climate Change insurance, the lack of legal precedents is the greatest obstacle for providing a system to mitigate the damages that might be incurred by the effects of Climate Change / Global Warming / sea-level rise. And by increasing the tax on gasoline incrementally over the years for the next 30 years could cause an- uproar to all of the petrochemical companies around the world. But –to me at least- a binding legislation of a Climate Change insurance based on the established principles of the modern insurance company / industry is probably the best solution where conservationist and the corporate / industrial world can reach a common ground.
By: Vanessa Uy
Like the establishment of the US Environmental Protection Agency back in 1970, there -as of yet- no existing legal precedents that allow –let alone to regulate- the sale of “Climate Change Insurance” policies to the average homeowner. Or maybe a homeowners insurance policy with a proviso for climate change / global warming caused damage "payout." These are quite as rare as "hen's teeth" but in Germany, the insurance community is abuzz with activity from Munich Re paying storm damage claims. I mean average because how many of us could afford the insurance premiums of Lloyd’s of London style insurance companies that provides coverage to risk whose mathematical evaluation borders on the non-existent? Also, the existing conservative political climate in the United States could easily allow existing insurance companies to classify the negative effects resulting from climate change –like sea level rise and increased frequency of hurricanes- as “Acts of God” which almost all existing insurance companies around the world won’t settle. And finally, is it wise to use the funds generated from “Carbon Offsetting” that’s already slated to bankroll sustainable / green development programs in “poor” countries be used as funds i.e. as an ethical form of "hedge funds" to settle the damages resulting from Climate Change?
Ever since “modern” insurance companies were established, they declared that the first essential factor in insurance is that the element of gambling must not be present. Since then, insurance companies had been eliminating the “element of gambling” by making it possible –through mathematics- to make accurate and scientific calculations of the extent of the hazard, so as to charge a fair premium. This is why it is important to study all the available scientific data to properly gauge the extent of Climate Change –now and in the future. The study can also be used to gauge if the risk must be important enough to warrant insurance. To make such a venture economically viable, the insurance company must have a large number of risks –spread out geographically- so that it will not have a concentration of risks in one area. And finally, the cost of the insurance –i.e. premiums- must be within the reach of a large number of people.
A couple of leading authorities –namely Michael Schlesinger and Natalia Andronova- professors of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says that low cost climate-change insurance could help ensure a better future. By implementing a “Carbon Tax” of five US cents per gallon of gasoline and gradually increasing the tax over the next 30 years is the optimal solution, the researchers report. “You can think of the tax as a low- cost insurance policy that protects against climate change,” said Michael Schlesinger. The policy premiums –according to Professor Schlesinger- could be used to develop alternative energy technologies. Doing a little now to mitigate long-term climate change would cost much less than doing nothing and making adjustments in the future.
Because mitigation would impose immediate costs, with any long –term benefit unknown, some scientists and policy-makers have argued that nothing should be done until the “uncertainty surrounding the climate issue” is substantially reduced. But Professor Schlesinger says:” By then, however, it may be too late to and we will have foreclosed certain options. Rather, the uncertainty is the very reason we should implement a climate policy in the near term.”
Professor Michael Schlesinger’s idea of a taxation-bankrolled Climate Change insurance is somewhat similar to a State Insurance where state funds –i.e. tax revenues- are organized for the insurance of the compensation risk. To me, this is more or less similar to Social Security insurance. Like state funds, a government controlled Climate Change insurance has the advantages of costing much less than that of private organizations because no commissions are paid to brokers or agents and the work is handled by state employees. Also, some state funds may not emphasize the prevention of losses. Finally, if the premiums collected are insufficient to pay losses, the state may have to make up the difference if permitted by law.
Despite of all the rigmarole and red tape surrounding the establishment of a Climate Change insurance, the lack of legal precedents is the greatest obstacle for providing a system to mitigate the damages that might be incurred by the effects of Climate Change / Global Warming / sea-level rise. And by increasing the tax on gasoline incrementally over the years for the next 30 years could cause an- uproar to all of the petrochemical companies around the world. But –to me at least- a binding legislation of a Climate Change insurance based on the established principles of the modern insurance company / industry is probably the best solution where conservationist and the corporate / industrial world can reach a common ground.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Live Earth 2007: An Exercise in Hypocrisy?
Despite the cause’s altruism, are private-jet-flying-I-got-more-than-one-very-fast-car-driving Rock/pop stars good spokespersons for saving the planet?
By: Vanessa Uy
It’s almost tantamount to choosing Paris Hilton as a spokesperson on moral turpitude awareness, but ever since the inception of Live Earth, I’ve always questioned the logic behind the cause’s raison d’être (or more accurately it’s self-parodying stance). Everyone knows that Rock/pop stars are the epitome of Western style capitalist avarice and conspicuous consumption. This little incident of “cognitive dissonance” hasn’t stopped Kevin Wall, Live Earth’s founder from executing this concept – with Al Gore’s blessing of course. For an event that’s billed as “The Greatest Show on Earth to Save the Earth” or “The Greatest Pop Music Event in History” with a mission to spread the message of protecting our environment an estimated audience exceeding 2billion people worldwide. The event will never be free from controversy despite of the organizers’ purchase of “Carbon Offset” funds and the use of environmentally friendly transport like biodiesel powered buses, will biofueled private jets be on offer in the future? As Al Gore unveiled the “7 Point Pledge” in the Live Earth event as a sort of a “checklist” for anyone interested in reducing their “carbon footprint.” Cynics will be saying and thinking that the audiences are more interested in the “acts” than the message Live Earth is trying to get across, but is it right to dismiss the worth of Live Earth?
Ever since the very first Woodstock back in the summer of 1969, Rock/pop stars had always proven their worth in spearheading social revolutions aimed in changing our world for the better. Back in the “Summer of Love”, Rock/pop stars made average suburban white folks more aware of the plight of African-Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King’s message, and the Vietnam War. These “celebrities” provided a platform of informed choice with universal appeal especially to impressionable teenagers. The “Secret Policeman” concert of the early 1980’s where Sting fused his humanitarian concerns with his Rockstar persona for the very first time and quite successful at it even until now. Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” of 1985 made more young people aware back then in that pre-internet era on the extent of the Ethiopian famine than the traditional news providers ever could. Then came the series of look-how-caring-we-are causes like “A Very Special Christmas” album compilations for the benefit of the Special Olympics.
Basing on this historical track record, I think Rock/pop stars are more successful in earning/generating money/funds for charity than convincing the powers-that-be to end wars and torture. It’s quite sad that convincing “Westernized” people around the world to abandon their pursuit of avarice and conspicuous consumption is almost as futile as convincing the global powers to end all on-going wars around the world. And let’s not forget Live Earth is not the first musical event with an environmental platform. Who among us can still recall the 20th Earth Day TV special back in April 1990 where Bette Middler pleading to all people around the world to be more “Earth Friendly.” Or the Seattle- Music- Scene-movie “Singles” where a bumper sticker reads: “Think Globally, Act Locally” lends a “Dadaist” environmental message in the movie. But earth friendliness never became popular to the 1990’s “Alternative- Grunge-Seattle” music scene. Apparently the “Dadaist Message” was deemed to subtle because the SUV and “cheap” gasoline were the lasting legacy of Clinton-era America. Another environmentalism-driven music scene is “Lilith Fair” but was and always been perceived by the majority as an “alternative lifestyle” venue for American women. And lets not forget that the “Rockstar” lifestyle and excess knows no bounds like the recent incident of Al Gore's son in an “unlawful joyride” with a hybrid car, a Toyota Prius no less.
In spite of it all, to me, any form of spreading awareness on the plight of our environment and what we –the ordinary people- could do in our part to save it should be embraced with open arms because it’s a way a lot better than doing nothing. Rock/pop star fronted causes might work only on “charity cases” but the moral pressure they exerted back in the 1960’s ended the US Government’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict, Civil Rights are no longer a dream but a working reality, but it took time. I think everyone around the world is beginning to realize that environmentalism only works when poverty is reduced to zero, and if the global peace and order situation takes a radical turn for the better.
By: Vanessa Uy
It’s almost tantamount to choosing Paris Hilton as a spokesperson on moral turpitude awareness, but ever since the inception of Live Earth, I’ve always questioned the logic behind the cause’s raison d’être (or more accurately it’s self-parodying stance). Everyone knows that Rock/pop stars are the epitome of Western style capitalist avarice and conspicuous consumption. This little incident of “cognitive dissonance” hasn’t stopped Kevin Wall, Live Earth’s founder from executing this concept – with Al Gore’s blessing of course. For an event that’s billed as “The Greatest Show on Earth to Save the Earth” or “The Greatest Pop Music Event in History” with a mission to spread the message of protecting our environment an estimated audience exceeding 2billion people worldwide. The event will never be free from controversy despite of the organizers’ purchase of “Carbon Offset” funds and the use of environmentally friendly transport like biodiesel powered buses, will biofueled private jets be on offer in the future? As Al Gore unveiled the “7 Point Pledge” in the Live Earth event as a sort of a “checklist” for anyone interested in reducing their “carbon footprint.” Cynics will be saying and thinking that the audiences are more interested in the “acts” than the message Live Earth is trying to get across, but is it right to dismiss the worth of Live Earth?
Ever since the very first Woodstock back in the summer of 1969, Rock/pop stars had always proven their worth in spearheading social revolutions aimed in changing our world for the better. Back in the “Summer of Love”, Rock/pop stars made average suburban white folks more aware of the plight of African-Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King’s message, and the Vietnam War. These “celebrities” provided a platform of informed choice with universal appeal especially to impressionable teenagers. The “Secret Policeman” concert of the early 1980’s where Sting fused his humanitarian concerns with his Rockstar persona for the very first time and quite successful at it even until now. Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” of 1985 made more young people aware back then in that pre-internet era on the extent of the Ethiopian famine than the traditional news providers ever could. Then came the series of look-how-caring-we-are causes like “A Very Special Christmas” album compilations for the benefit of the Special Olympics.
Basing on this historical track record, I think Rock/pop stars are more successful in earning/generating money/funds for charity than convincing the powers-that-be to end wars and torture. It’s quite sad that convincing “Westernized” people around the world to abandon their pursuit of avarice and conspicuous consumption is almost as futile as convincing the global powers to end all on-going wars around the world. And let’s not forget Live Earth is not the first musical event with an environmental platform. Who among us can still recall the 20th Earth Day TV special back in April 1990 where Bette Middler pleading to all people around the world to be more “Earth Friendly.” Or the Seattle- Music- Scene-movie “Singles” where a bumper sticker reads: “Think Globally, Act Locally” lends a “Dadaist” environmental message in the movie. But earth friendliness never became popular to the 1990’s “Alternative- Grunge-Seattle” music scene. Apparently the “Dadaist Message” was deemed to subtle because the SUV and “cheap” gasoline were the lasting legacy of Clinton-era America. Another environmentalism-driven music scene is “Lilith Fair” but was and always been perceived by the majority as an “alternative lifestyle” venue for American women. And lets not forget that the “Rockstar” lifestyle and excess knows no bounds like the recent incident of Al Gore's son in an “unlawful joyride” with a hybrid car, a Toyota Prius no less.
In spite of it all, to me, any form of spreading awareness on the plight of our environment and what we –the ordinary people- could do in our part to save it should be embraced with open arms because it’s a way a lot better than doing nothing. Rock/pop star fronted causes might work only on “charity cases” but the moral pressure they exerted back in the 1960’s ended the US Government’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict, Civil Rights are no longer a dream but a working reality, but it took time. I think everyone around the world is beginning to realize that environmentalism only works when poverty is reduced to zero, and if the global peace and order situation takes a radical turn for the better.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Structured Settlements: A Barrier to Social Justice?
Now more than ever, governments worldwide are forced to choose between the welfare of their citizens or in maintaining the “bottom line” of corporate entities.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
American social justice crusader Michael Moore had criticized structured settlements in his documentary “Bowling for Columbine” citing that -in practice- it is pro-corporation and anti-corporate victim. In the recent Heiligendamm G8, ATTAC-the anti G8 pressure group-are very clear on where they stand on the issue of structured settlements with their motto that states: “The world is not for sale.” But what is a “structured settlement”? A structured settlement is a financial or insurance arrangement- including periodic payments- that a claimant accepts to resolve a personal injury tort claim or to compromise a statutory periodic payment obligation. Structured settlements were first utilized in the US and Canada during the 1970’s as an alternative to lump sum settlements. Structured settlement payments are sometimes called “periodic payments.” A structured settlement that is incorporated into a trial judgment is called “periodic payment judgment.” Almost instantly after being instituted by the major economic powers in their judicial system, structured settlements were later adopted by London, Australia and the rest of the “Industrialized West.” If this form of settlement is being widely adopted by the Western World, then conventional wisdom dictates that this is a good thing – right?
In practice, the equitability of structured settlements - like the laws of physics in a black hole/singularity- break down when the claimant has became terminally ill and doesn’t have much time to live. This works in favor of the corporation responsible for the said injury/damage to the health and well being of the plaintiff. Back in June 2007, the BBC reported on a court appeal in the US to pay compensation to Vietnamese citizens affected by the defoliant “Agent Orange” then in use during the Vietnam War. The claimants lost on the first round of court hearings, but they vow to persevere.
Basing on what we currently know about the “Agent Orange” issue, the Vietnamese victims of the said defoliant face an uphill battle. Since the manufacturers of the “Agent Orange” used during the Vietnam War – DOW Chemical Corporation and Monsanto Corporation – have close ties to the powers-that-be on the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. Even though -at present- DOW and Monsanto are currently involved with structured settlements with American Troops who became chronically ill and developed cancer while being exposed to “Agent Orange” during their “Tour of Duty” in Vietnam during the 1960’s.
DOW and Monsanto’s “delay tactics” will only do the company favors since their yet-to-be-recognized claimants are slowly dying out. This might not pass as justice to most of us civilized folks, but it’s the law!
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
American social justice crusader Michael Moore had criticized structured settlements in his documentary “Bowling for Columbine” citing that -in practice- it is pro-corporation and anti-corporate victim. In the recent Heiligendamm G8, ATTAC-the anti G8 pressure group-are very clear on where they stand on the issue of structured settlements with their motto that states: “The world is not for sale.” But what is a “structured settlement”? A structured settlement is a financial or insurance arrangement- including periodic payments- that a claimant accepts to resolve a personal injury tort claim or to compromise a statutory periodic payment obligation. Structured settlements were first utilized in the US and Canada during the 1970’s as an alternative to lump sum settlements. Structured settlement payments are sometimes called “periodic payments.” A structured settlement that is incorporated into a trial judgment is called “periodic payment judgment.” Almost instantly after being instituted by the major economic powers in their judicial system, structured settlements were later adopted by London, Australia and the rest of the “Industrialized West.” If this form of settlement is being widely adopted by the Western World, then conventional wisdom dictates that this is a good thing – right?
In practice, the equitability of structured settlements - like the laws of physics in a black hole/singularity- break down when the claimant has became terminally ill and doesn’t have much time to live. This works in favor of the corporation responsible for the said injury/damage to the health and well being of the plaintiff. Back in June 2007, the BBC reported on a court appeal in the US to pay compensation to Vietnamese citizens affected by the defoliant “Agent Orange” then in use during the Vietnam War. The claimants lost on the first round of court hearings, but they vow to persevere.
Basing on what we currently know about the “Agent Orange” issue, the Vietnamese victims of the said defoliant face an uphill battle. Since the manufacturers of the “Agent Orange” used during the Vietnam War – DOW Chemical Corporation and Monsanto Corporation – have close ties to the powers-that-be on the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. Even though -at present- DOW and Monsanto are currently involved with structured settlements with American Troops who became chronically ill and developed cancer while being exposed to “Agent Orange” during their “Tour of Duty” in Vietnam during the 1960’s.
DOW and Monsanto’s “delay tactics” will only do the company favors since their yet-to-be-recognized claimants are slowly dying out. This might not pass as justice to most of us civilized folks, but it’s the law!
Wither Air Travel
Even though air travel produce only 3% of the industrial world’s total carbon dioxide output, why do environmentalists continue to vilify it as the main culprit of global warming?
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
Having seen “The Ethical Man” series of documentaries on the BBC’s world service, both of us had always wondered why air travel receives a disproportionate amount of vilification by the world’s environmentally conscious populace. Is it because of the current reality that biofuels won’t work (they’ll freeze) at the high altitudes frequented by commercial air traffic? Or is it because that the ownership of “private jets” -the perennial (30-year-old?) aspiration- of the ultimate status symbol never goes out of fashion? If these environmentalists hate air travel for these reasons, are they willing to boycott Mid-East oil in order to solve the turmoil in Iraq and put an end to the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s and Al- Qaeda’s raison d’être? Or should we be asking the question: “Is there an alternative to air travel?”
Since -at present- politics beat environmental concerns, in our opinion there will never be an alternative to air travel unless the worldwide peace and order situation undergoes a radical turn for the better. Land based mass transit systems –like bus and rail- are easy prey for Taliban-style insurgents armed with assault rifles and man-portable artillery. Sea travel fares no better, remember the Achile Lauro incident more than 20 years ago? Even the US Navy’s USS Cole, was seriously damaged by an Al-Qaeda operative sailing a “floating firecracker.” Since 99% of the world’s terrorist organizations don’t have yet the capability to shoot down commercial planes flying at 30,000 feet, then flying is still-for the foreseeable future- the safest way to travel. Even if it’s not quite environmentally friendly.
The 2008 US Presidential Elections are looming on the horizon. Does every one of these presidential candidates need to hop on their individual private jets just to go from one Presidential Debate venue to another? Maybe these presidential candidates do a “carpooling” equivalent on their private jets. Security protocols could still be maintained while reducing the candidate’s carbon footprint. It would be quite hypocritical if these presidential candidates say they are pro-environment yet they use their private jets as if they are bicycles.
The world’s politicians should stop procrastinating when it comes to conflict resolution. Unless they have a vested interest in a “carbon intensive” industry, a more peaceful world means a less energy-intensive world.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
Having seen “The Ethical Man” series of documentaries on the BBC’s world service, both of us had always wondered why air travel receives a disproportionate amount of vilification by the world’s environmentally conscious populace. Is it because of the current reality that biofuels won’t work (they’ll freeze) at the high altitudes frequented by commercial air traffic? Or is it because that the ownership of “private jets” -the perennial (30-year-old?) aspiration- of the ultimate status symbol never goes out of fashion? If these environmentalists hate air travel for these reasons, are they willing to boycott Mid-East oil in order to solve the turmoil in Iraq and put an end to the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s and Al- Qaeda’s raison d’être? Or should we be asking the question: “Is there an alternative to air travel?”
Since -at present- politics beat environmental concerns, in our opinion there will never be an alternative to air travel unless the worldwide peace and order situation undergoes a radical turn for the better. Land based mass transit systems –like bus and rail- are easy prey for Taliban-style insurgents armed with assault rifles and man-portable artillery. Sea travel fares no better, remember the Achile Lauro incident more than 20 years ago? Even the US Navy’s USS Cole, was seriously damaged by an Al-Qaeda operative sailing a “floating firecracker.” Since 99% of the world’s terrorist organizations don’t have yet the capability to shoot down commercial planes flying at 30,000 feet, then flying is still-for the foreseeable future- the safest way to travel. Even if it’s not quite environmentally friendly.
The 2008 US Presidential Elections are looming on the horizon. Does every one of these presidential candidates need to hop on their individual private jets just to go from one Presidential Debate venue to another? Maybe these presidential candidates do a “carpooling” equivalent on their private jets. Security protocols could still be maintained while reducing the candidate’s carbon footprint. It would be quite hypocritical if these presidential candidates say they are pro-environment yet they use their private jets as if they are bicycles.
The world’s politicians should stop procrastinating when it comes to conflict resolution. Unless they have a vested interest in a “carbon intensive” industry, a more peaceful world means a less energy-intensive world.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Mesothelioma: A 21st Century Pandemic?
Mesothelioma, a rare and invariably fatal form of cancer that is caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos fibers might become more common by the middle of the 21st Century courtesy of the September 11,2001 attacks.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
The valiant men and women who helped the victims of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center that fateful morning of September 11, 2001 may be in for an unpleasant surprise by the middle of the 21st Century. Everyone at “Ground Zero”, victims and rescuers alike might invariably come down with mesothelioma. The “twin towers” of the World Trade Center were built before the comprehensive ban on the use of asbestos fibers for building construction was ratified thus both rescue workers and victims were exposed to large amounts of asbestos fibers. The following months after the September 11, 2001 attacks- New Yorkers were continuously exposed to asbestos fibers wafting around as the clean up at “Ground Zero” went on. The big question is, should everyone be concerned?
A research was conducted at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York 60 years before. The researchers spent 20 years studying 933 workers who produced asbestos insulation at a manufacturing plant in Paterson, New Jersey from 1941 to 1954. The researchers discovered that 186 of the workers had developed a then unique form of lung cancer. In 1973, the researchers began X-ray examinations of some of the worker’s families. The researchers found out that nearly 40 per cent of the 210 families tested had lung abnormalities common to asbestos workers. Four people who had come into contact with asbestos workers when they were children developed mesothelioma, a rare and invariably fatal form of cancer that is caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. Using this “occupational health study” data, the Mount Sinai Medical Center researchers feared that a plague of mesothelioma might break out around the year 2000. The World Trade Center / 9-11 incident could change mesothelioma forecasts for the 21st Century for the worse.
The pathologic description of malignant mesotheliona –according to Robbins’ “Pathologic Basis of Disease”- refers to an uncommon tumor of mesothelial cells. This tumor occurs most often on the pleura and rarely in the peritoneum or other organs. It is associated with exposure to asbestos in 90% of cases, but only 20% of patients have actual pulmonary asbestosis. The lifetime risk in heavily exposed individuals is 7 to 10%, and the latent period between exposure and the development of mesothelioma is 25 to 45 years. Nevertheless, bronchogenic carcinoma remains the most common lung tumor found in asbestos workers. The clinical features of mesothelioma are patients present with chest pain, dyspnea, and recurrent pleural effusions.
Since the recent scandal of soldiers wounded in action in Iraq receiving substandard treatment became headline news during the first few months of 2007. Many are concerned weather firefighters and law enforcement personnel who responded to the World Trade Center attacks will have adequate medical coverage if they develop mesothelioma in the future. Even Michael Moore is rumored to be already planning a sequel to his latest documentary “Sicko” devoted solely to the NYFD and NYPD personnel who will be diagnosed with mesothelioma in the future and how the US Government treats them. We hope that the next administration will take the ramifications of this issue very seriously.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
The valiant men and women who helped the victims of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center that fateful morning of September 11, 2001 may be in for an unpleasant surprise by the middle of the 21st Century. Everyone at “Ground Zero”, victims and rescuers alike might invariably come down with mesothelioma. The “twin towers” of the World Trade Center were built before the comprehensive ban on the use of asbestos fibers for building construction was ratified thus both rescue workers and victims were exposed to large amounts of asbestos fibers. The following months after the September 11, 2001 attacks- New Yorkers were continuously exposed to asbestos fibers wafting around as the clean up at “Ground Zero” went on. The big question is, should everyone be concerned?
A research was conducted at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York 60 years before. The researchers spent 20 years studying 933 workers who produced asbestos insulation at a manufacturing plant in Paterson, New Jersey from 1941 to 1954. The researchers discovered that 186 of the workers had developed a then unique form of lung cancer. In 1973, the researchers began X-ray examinations of some of the worker’s families. The researchers found out that nearly 40 per cent of the 210 families tested had lung abnormalities common to asbestos workers. Four people who had come into contact with asbestos workers when they were children developed mesothelioma, a rare and invariably fatal form of cancer that is caused by exposure to asbestos fibers. Using this “occupational health study” data, the Mount Sinai Medical Center researchers feared that a plague of mesothelioma might break out around the year 2000. The World Trade Center / 9-11 incident could change mesothelioma forecasts for the 21st Century for the worse.
The pathologic description of malignant mesotheliona –according to Robbins’ “Pathologic Basis of Disease”- refers to an uncommon tumor of mesothelial cells. This tumor occurs most often on the pleura and rarely in the peritoneum or other organs. It is associated with exposure to asbestos in 90% of cases, but only 20% of patients have actual pulmonary asbestosis. The lifetime risk in heavily exposed individuals is 7 to 10%, and the latent period between exposure and the development of mesothelioma is 25 to 45 years. Nevertheless, bronchogenic carcinoma remains the most common lung tumor found in asbestos workers. The clinical features of mesothelioma are patients present with chest pain, dyspnea, and recurrent pleural effusions.
Since the recent scandal of soldiers wounded in action in Iraq receiving substandard treatment became headline news during the first few months of 2007. Many are concerned weather firefighters and law enforcement personnel who responded to the World Trade Center attacks will have adequate medical coverage if they develop mesothelioma in the future. Even Michael Moore is rumored to be already planning a sequel to his latest documentary “Sicko” devoted solely to the NYFD and NYPD personnel who will be diagnosed with mesothelioma in the future and how the US Government treats them. We hope that the next administration will take the ramifications of this issue very seriously.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
What Drives Our Global Energy Conservation Policies
When it comes to energy conservation, do the consensus reached by the powers-that-be driven by political or environmental demands?
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
In a perfect world, climate and/or environmental protection should dictate our energy conservation policies. But the whole world learned –in a hard way- that this isn’t so. Look at the recent outcome of the Heiligendamm G8. The truth was revealed for the whole world to see that the worlds leading polluters’ reluctance to adapt to “green” technologies is due to their overriding policy of choosing economic growth and poverty eradication over safeguarding our planet’s environment. In our opinion, economic growth doesn’t always translate readily into poverty reduction. In a country like the Philippines where on average the economy grows 1% annually while the annual population growth 2.5%. At this rate poverty always wins hands down.
Our recent Al Gore driven environmental consciousness in almost all levels of society is viewed by the majority of environmentalist that are active since the 1960’s as a “too little too late reaction”, but is it? Plans to make the industrial world’s energy source independent from petroleum had been drawn up since the 1967 Arab – Israeli War. And we always got the same perennial excuse since then: these energy sources can’t compete with cheap Middle Eastern oil. When should the global community take environmental and energy security issues seriously?
Over the years, there had been “missed opportunities” where a charismatic leader of strong political will could expedite during these crucial moments of recent history with a high degree of success of ending the human race’s addiction to petroleum. One of these junctures in history was the very first “Earth Day” back in April 22, 1970. Humor me for a moment; imagine then US Vice President Spiro T. Agnew writing his own version of “An Inconvenient Truth” highlighting the evils of Middle Eastern oil. OPEC would never have come to power in 1973. The OPEC imposed oil embargo on Western nations that happened back in October 17, 1973 and ended on March 18, 1974 could have been just a bad dream. The US Government’s delayed reaction on the OPEC threat by establishing the Department of Energy back in August 4, 1977 would only have only existed in techno thriller – type fiction. Or what if the Operation: Desert Storm veterans voiced their concerns during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) -held in Rio de Janeiro last June 1992- against the needless deaths of enlisted men and women to keep crude oil cheap. Friends of ours who served during Operation: Desert Storm genuinely believed –under enemy fire at that time- that by year 2000 cars will run on stuff- other- than- petrol. Then came September 11, 2001; then the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s March 2003 invasion of Iraq in search of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Despite all of those incidents of the past 30 or so years, energy security was never a serious issue.
Despite of a long list of missed opportunities of ending our petroleum addiction, policymakers around the world still don’t learn about the gravity of the situation. Do they have to wait for an all out nuclear exchange in the Middle East to consider evaluating alternatives to petroleum? It’s getting increasingly hard for anyone around me from ignoring the fact that every time we flick on a light switch or ride on a gasoline- powered vehicle we are rewarding the bad behavior of despotic Middle Eastern states. Renewable energy doesn’t only mean environmentally friendly energy but guilt free as well. Politics truly is the driving force behind our global energy policy, if only the powers-that-be will realize that we don’t have to buy our energy needs from countries that hate our guts.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
In a perfect world, climate and/or environmental protection should dictate our energy conservation policies. But the whole world learned –in a hard way- that this isn’t so. Look at the recent outcome of the Heiligendamm G8. The truth was revealed for the whole world to see that the worlds leading polluters’ reluctance to adapt to “green” technologies is due to their overriding policy of choosing economic growth and poverty eradication over safeguarding our planet’s environment. In our opinion, economic growth doesn’t always translate readily into poverty reduction. In a country like the Philippines where on average the economy grows 1% annually while the annual population growth 2.5%. At this rate poverty always wins hands down.
Our recent Al Gore driven environmental consciousness in almost all levels of society is viewed by the majority of environmentalist that are active since the 1960’s as a “too little too late reaction”, but is it? Plans to make the industrial world’s energy source independent from petroleum had been drawn up since the 1967 Arab – Israeli War. And we always got the same perennial excuse since then: these energy sources can’t compete with cheap Middle Eastern oil. When should the global community take environmental and energy security issues seriously?
Over the years, there had been “missed opportunities” where a charismatic leader of strong political will could expedite during these crucial moments of recent history with a high degree of success of ending the human race’s addiction to petroleum. One of these junctures in history was the very first “Earth Day” back in April 22, 1970. Humor me for a moment; imagine then US Vice President Spiro T. Agnew writing his own version of “An Inconvenient Truth” highlighting the evils of Middle Eastern oil. OPEC would never have come to power in 1973. The OPEC imposed oil embargo on Western nations that happened back in October 17, 1973 and ended on March 18, 1974 could have been just a bad dream. The US Government’s delayed reaction on the OPEC threat by establishing the Department of Energy back in August 4, 1977 would only have only existed in techno thriller – type fiction. Or what if the Operation: Desert Storm veterans voiced their concerns during the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) -held in Rio de Janeiro last June 1992- against the needless deaths of enlisted men and women to keep crude oil cheap. Friends of ours who served during Operation: Desert Storm genuinely believed –under enemy fire at that time- that by year 2000 cars will run on stuff- other- than- petrol. Then came September 11, 2001; then the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s March 2003 invasion of Iraq in search of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Despite all of those incidents of the past 30 or so years, energy security was never a serious issue.
Despite of a long list of missed opportunities of ending our petroleum addiction, policymakers around the world still don’t learn about the gravity of the situation. Do they have to wait for an all out nuclear exchange in the Middle East to consider evaluating alternatives to petroleum? It’s getting increasingly hard for anyone around me from ignoring the fact that every time we flick on a light switch or ride on a gasoline- powered vehicle we are rewarding the bad behavior of despotic Middle Eastern states. Renewable energy doesn’t only mean environmentally friendly energy but guilt free as well. Politics truly is the driving force behind our global energy policy, if only the powers-that-be will realize that we don’t have to buy our energy needs from countries that hate our guts.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Rock Against Global Warming
Will Al Gore score another “first” by holding a Rock concert like “Live Earth” to spread awareness on the dangers of global warming?
By: Vanessa Uy
Al Gore is indeed a pioneering figure. He’s the first politician to use his influence to spread awareness on the possible harm global warming can cause to our planet and to our civilization. Despite of the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s stance on the contrary, Al Gore successfully influenced most of the world’s policymakers to legislate climate protection laws.
“Live Earth” is a Rock concert slated across seven continents to spread awareness of global warming to the next generation. As of June 20, 2007, Al Gore was reportedly meeting with Madonna to strike a deal for a performance highlighting the seriousness of his efforts.
In the past 20 years, Rock concerts for a cause like Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” - were held for famine relief and humanitarian efforts for Ethiopia and various “needy” parts of Africa. As does the 2005 “Live 8” as a form of moral pressure to keep the powers-that-be in the Gleneagles G8 to make serious of their sincerity to make poverty history not just in Africa but for the rest of the world.
If it succeeds, “Live Earth” could go down in history – as the 1969 Woodstock does- as a unique musical event. I hope “Live Aid” does to our environment as the 1969 Woodstock did to a generation of young people back then i.e. a revolutionary cultural advancement. Back then Jimi Hendrix made white suburban white teens more aware of Dr. Martin Luther King’s message. Which artist or performer will do the same for the urgency of current environmental causes on this coming “Live Earth” concert?
By: Vanessa Uy
Al Gore is indeed a pioneering figure. He’s the first politician to use his influence to spread awareness on the possible harm global warming can cause to our planet and to our civilization. Despite of the Bush Administration/Oligarchy’s stance on the contrary, Al Gore successfully influenced most of the world’s policymakers to legislate climate protection laws.
“Live Earth” is a Rock concert slated across seven continents to spread awareness of global warming to the next generation. As of June 20, 2007, Al Gore was reportedly meeting with Madonna to strike a deal for a performance highlighting the seriousness of his efforts.
In the past 20 years, Rock concerts for a cause like Sir Bob Geldof’s “Live Aid” - were held for famine relief and humanitarian efforts for Ethiopia and various “needy” parts of Africa. As does the 2005 “Live 8” as a form of moral pressure to keep the powers-that-be in the Gleneagles G8 to make serious of their sincerity to make poverty history not just in Africa but for the rest of the world.
If it succeeds, “Live Earth” could go down in history – as the 1969 Woodstock does- as a unique musical event. I hope “Live Aid” does to our environment as the 1969 Woodstock did to a generation of young people back then i.e. a revolutionary cultural advancement. Back then Jimi Hendrix made white suburban white teens more aware of Dr. Martin Luther King’s message. Which artist or performer will do the same for the urgency of current environmental causes on this coming “Live Earth” concert?
The Albatross: The 21st Century’s Canary in the Mine?
Thanks to the support of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, the world –at-large is now more aware of the plight of the albatross.
By: Vanessa Uy
In our celebrity obsessed popular press, concern for animal welfare seldom make it to page two while the impact of human activity on rare and endangered species will be lucky to make it to page 14. But thanks to the support of HRH the Prince of Wales (a.k.a. Prince Charles) the world’s policy makers will be made more aware on the plight of the albatross. An orchestrated campaign was already set up to protect these endangered birds which about 100,000 are needlessly killed annually as a consequence of long line fishing. Also the “Save the Albatross” sailing race was held to spread awareness that the albatross-even in their home territory in the “roaring 40’s”- still need our help.
Biologically, albatross have comparable life span to humans. At 10 years, the albatross can breed. Their slow rate of reproduction at one chick every other year means that they cannot easily recover a population crash.
During the past few years, various researchers have noted a decline in albatross population. Ben Sullivan of Birdlife International notes that the census on albatross population decline over the past few years implies that someday the albatross will become extinct if current trends will continue.
One of the main culprits of the albatross population decline are the long line fishing boats that operate in the southern ocean i.e. "the roaring 40’s.” Equipped with lines up to 120 kilometers long and baited with thousands of fish- hooks. These serve as deathtraps to the albatross that are attracted to the bait. Unable to surface after being trapped, they drown by the thousands. The fishermen manning these vessels are concerned not only on the consequential reduction of catch quotas but also of the needless waste of albatross dying as a result. To avoid albatross by catch, long line fishing reforms such as the use of various mitigation measures like weighing the lines to allow it to sink quickly out of reach of the albatross. Streamers attached to the lines to scare away the albatross are also a success. Since the albatross are diurnal i.e. are active only during daylight ours, laying the lines after sundown are a good way of avoiding an albatross by catch.
Despite of the conservation efforts, albatross still continue to die needlessly due to “pirate fishing vessels.” These “pirate fishing vessels” flying under “flags of convenience”, were responsible for a quarter or more of annual albatross deaths. Currently, they are still very hard to catch/prosecute since albatross protection laws are only heavily enforced in South Georgia waters. Illegal unregulated fisheries (pirate fishermen) are killing the albatross as by catch with impunity.
One solution to stop this carnage is via consumer moral pressure. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) together with the consumers can exert moral pressure to our policymakers to make albatross protection legally binding like the “dolphin friendly tuna campaign” of the 1980’s. Under their mandate, the Marine Stewardship Council also monitors if a batch of fish that enters the market were taken from their point of origin in a sustainable manner.
The relationship between the albatross and mariners are “romanticized” in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem “The Rime of an Ancient Mariner.” In the poem, a sailor kills an albatross. An act that later brought misfortune to the crew. In the 21st Century our concern for the welfare of the albatross goes beyond environmentalism, literary sentimentality or even superstition. This “canary in the mine” so to speak serves also to measure our humanity and on how civilized we are. Can all of us safely say that we are really more civilized today compared to when Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The Rime of an Ancient Mariner” when it comes to taking stewardship of our planet? Will the albatross someday –like the dodo- only exist in humanity’s collective memory?
By: Vanessa Uy
In our celebrity obsessed popular press, concern for animal welfare seldom make it to page two while the impact of human activity on rare and endangered species will be lucky to make it to page 14. But thanks to the support of HRH the Prince of Wales (a.k.a. Prince Charles) the world’s policy makers will be made more aware on the plight of the albatross. An orchestrated campaign was already set up to protect these endangered birds which about 100,000 are needlessly killed annually as a consequence of long line fishing. Also the “Save the Albatross” sailing race was held to spread awareness that the albatross-even in their home territory in the “roaring 40’s”- still need our help.
Biologically, albatross have comparable life span to humans. At 10 years, the albatross can breed. Their slow rate of reproduction at one chick every other year means that they cannot easily recover a population crash.
During the past few years, various researchers have noted a decline in albatross population. Ben Sullivan of Birdlife International notes that the census on albatross population decline over the past few years implies that someday the albatross will become extinct if current trends will continue.
One of the main culprits of the albatross population decline are the long line fishing boats that operate in the southern ocean i.e. "the roaring 40’s.” Equipped with lines up to 120 kilometers long and baited with thousands of fish- hooks. These serve as deathtraps to the albatross that are attracted to the bait. Unable to surface after being trapped, they drown by the thousands. The fishermen manning these vessels are concerned not only on the consequential reduction of catch quotas but also of the needless waste of albatross dying as a result. To avoid albatross by catch, long line fishing reforms such as the use of various mitigation measures like weighing the lines to allow it to sink quickly out of reach of the albatross. Streamers attached to the lines to scare away the albatross are also a success. Since the albatross are diurnal i.e. are active only during daylight ours, laying the lines after sundown are a good way of avoiding an albatross by catch.
Despite of the conservation efforts, albatross still continue to die needlessly due to “pirate fishing vessels.” These “pirate fishing vessels” flying under “flags of convenience”, were responsible for a quarter or more of annual albatross deaths. Currently, they are still very hard to catch/prosecute since albatross protection laws are only heavily enforced in South Georgia waters. Illegal unregulated fisheries (pirate fishermen) are killing the albatross as by catch with impunity.
One solution to stop this carnage is via consumer moral pressure. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) together with the consumers can exert moral pressure to our policymakers to make albatross protection legally binding like the “dolphin friendly tuna campaign” of the 1980’s. Under their mandate, the Marine Stewardship Council also monitors if a batch of fish that enters the market were taken from their point of origin in a sustainable manner.
The relationship between the albatross and mariners are “romanticized” in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem “The Rime of an Ancient Mariner.” In the poem, a sailor kills an albatross. An act that later brought misfortune to the crew. In the 21st Century our concern for the welfare of the albatross goes beyond environmentalism, literary sentimentality or even superstition. This “canary in the mine” so to speak serves also to measure our humanity and on how civilized we are. Can all of us safely say that we are really more civilized today compared to when Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The Rime of an Ancient Mariner” when it comes to taking stewardship of our planet? Will the albatross someday –like the dodo- only exist in humanity’s collective memory?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Paradise Lost: Global Warming Threatens Tuvalu
Al Gore has been warning us in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” about “climate change refugees,” Tuvalu can be a case in point.
By: Vanessa Uy
If you want proof on the realities of global warming, look no further than Tuvalu. This small Pacific Island nation of about 12,000 inhabitants have already been trying to cope with the effects of sea level rise caused by global warming. Sea- water is already seeping into vulnerable parts of Tuvalu’s ground water table, damaging the nation’s corn and sugarcane farms. As the world’s 4th smallest nation, Tuvalu’s 25 square kilometer land area is principally composed of 9 atolls that barely rises more than 4 meters above sea level. Even during the normal high tide cycle threaten this country with sea- water encroachment, let alone during storm surges of tropical cyclones. Even back in 1989, the UN identified Tuvalu as a nation most likely at risk when global sea levels rise.
Economically, not so much has changed since Tuvalu was granted independence by Great Britain in 1968. Despite having signed a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand back in 1980, the average annual income hovers at around US$1,000 a year. If industrialized nations won’t do their part to combat global warming, Tuvalu’s citizens might become the first batch of “climate change refugees” in search of a new homeland. The two closest nations that have the resources to provide sanctuary to Tuvalu’s citizens if the sea level rise gets worse are Australia and New Zealand. Since Australia and New Zealand has stringent immigration laws which require anyone applying for citizenship should earn on average US$12,000 a year to be safely admitted, or has a bank account with an average daily balance of US$10,000. Unless Australia and New Zealand will amend the rules regarding their immigration policy, this rules out the majority of Tuvalu’s citizens.
Maybe it’s time for the West to give back what they have taken from the Pacific Islanders during the last 500 years or so of oceanographic exploration and colonization. Even during World War II, the Pacific Islanders were instrumental in making possible the Allied victory against the Imperial Japanese expansion. There’s more here at steak than electoral votes when the politicians of industrialized nations adopt a stronger stance on climate protection which might not be popular to the “industry lobbyists.” Or do the world’s top polluters need to wait for international opinion to exert moral pressure.
By: Vanessa Uy
If you want proof on the realities of global warming, look no further than Tuvalu. This small Pacific Island nation of about 12,000 inhabitants have already been trying to cope with the effects of sea level rise caused by global warming. Sea- water is already seeping into vulnerable parts of Tuvalu’s ground water table, damaging the nation’s corn and sugarcane farms. As the world’s 4th smallest nation, Tuvalu’s 25 square kilometer land area is principally composed of 9 atolls that barely rises more than 4 meters above sea level. Even during the normal high tide cycle threaten this country with sea- water encroachment, let alone during storm surges of tropical cyclones. Even back in 1989, the UN identified Tuvalu as a nation most likely at risk when global sea levels rise.
Economically, not so much has changed since Tuvalu was granted independence by Great Britain in 1968. Despite having signed a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand back in 1980, the average annual income hovers at around US$1,000 a year. If industrialized nations won’t do their part to combat global warming, Tuvalu’s citizens might become the first batch of “climate change refugees” in search of a new homeland. The two closest nations that have the resources to provide sanctuary to Tuvalu’s citizens if the sea level rise gets worse are Australia and New Zealand. Since Australia and New Zealand has stringent immigration laws which require anyone applying for citizenship should earn on average US$12,000 a year to be safely admitted, or has a bank account with an average daily balance of US$10,000. Unless Australia and New Zealand will amend the rules regarding their immigration policy, this rules out the majority of Tuvalu’s citizens.
Maybe it’s time for the West to give back what they have taken from the Pacific Islanders during the last 500 years or so of oceanographic exploration and colonization. Even during World War II, the Pacific Islanders were instrumental in making possible the Allied victory against the Imperial Japanese expansion. There’s more here at steak than electoral votes when the politicians of industrialized nations adopt a stronger stance on climate protection which might not be popular to the “industry lobbyists.” Or do the world’s top polluters need to wait for international opinion to exert moral pressure.
Our Bees Are Dying
The idea seems so absurd, but toward the end of 2006, everyone in the United States agricultural community had noticed that bees – especially in America’s Northeast region – are becoming scarce.
By: Vanessa Uy
Albert Einstein once said that if all the bees in the world were to disappear, the human race has only four years to live. Bees are extremely important to agricultural crops because without bees not only will our food crops fail to yield their fruits, our food crops won’t be able to reproduce without the aid of bees in their pollination. Remember apiculture (bee keeping) is more than just producing honey.
The phenomenon that describes the continuing decline of honeybee population in the United States is called: “Colony Collapse Disorder.” Colony Collapse Disorder was first observed in a blueberry farm in the state of Maine. Ken State University had conducted bee “autopsies” in the field where Colony Collapse Disorder had occurred. Dennis Van Engelsdorp, one of the researchers investigating the phenomenon have found out that autopsies conducted on the dead bees show that signs of disease are present but the cause is still a mystery. As of the middle of May 2007 the preliminary findings suggest that “Colony Collapse Disorder” -might be caused -by an agent that affects the bee’s immune system.
Even though the jury is still out, “Colony Collapse Disorder” has already been declared as a “calamity” by various farm and agricultural communities in the US. Watermelons and other honeybee dependent crops have shown decline in their yields during the past two years. This had cost farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. At present, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is still localized in the northeastern part of the United States. If we don’t understand this phenomena and create a solution before this spreads around the world, mankind is doomed.
By: Vanessa Uy
Albert Einstein once said that if all the bees in the world were to disappear, the human race has only four years to live. Bees are extremely important to agricultural crops because without bees not only will our food crops fail to yield their fruits, our food crops won’t be able to reproduce without the aid of bees in their pollination. Remember apiculture (bee keeping) is more than just producing honey.
The phenomenon that describes the continuing decline of honeybee population in the United States is called: “Colony Collapse Disorder.” Colony Collapse Disorder was first observed in a blueberry farm in the state of Maine. Ken State University had conducted bee “autopsies” in the field where Colony Collapse Disorder had occurred. Dennis Van Engelsdorp, one of the researchers investigating the phenomenon have found out that autopsies conducted on the dead bees show that signs of disease are present but the cause is still a mystery. As of the middle of May 2007 the preliminary findings suggest that “Colony Collapse Disorder” -might be caused -by an agent that affects the bee’s immune system.
Even though the jury is still out, “Colony Collapse Disorder” has already been declared as a “calamity” by various farm and agricultural communities in the US. Watermelons and other honeybee dependent crops have shown decline in their yields during the past two years. This had cost farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. At present, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is still localized in the northeastern part of the United States. If we don’t understand this phenomena and create a solution before this spreads around the world, mankind is doomed.
Friday, June 8, 2007
A Run for Clean and Safe Drinking Water
When it comes to campaigns for social and environmental welfare, you can never have enough of these in the harsh reality of today.
By: Vanessa Uy
Blue Water Run, a campaign to highlight the lack of safe and clean drinking water in the developing world. Over 2 million people a year die due to water borne illnesses. Blue Water Run is supported by film star Hillary Swank.
Blue Water Run is billed as a round the world relay race that involves 20 runners in 60 different countries. The runners will be on the road for 95 days.
To me, it’s quite refreshing when famous celebrities use their influence to fast track campaigns to improve the living conditions of the world’s poor. These problems usually rank at the bottom – if ever discussed at all – of the priorities of the powers-that-be during the previous G8 summits. Will the issue of a steady supply clean drinking water for poor communities be ever discussed on the Heiligendamm G8 summit? The Bush Administration will probably “hog” the summit with the issues concerning their “missile defense program.”
For a minimum donation of US$30, you can lend a helping hand in providing a safe and steady supply of clean drinking water for the world’s poorest communities. For more details, just go to www.blueplanetrun.org.
By: Vanessa Uy
Blue Water Run, a campaign to highlight the lack of safe and clean drinking water in the developing world. Over 2 million people a year die due to water borne illnesses. Blue Water Run is supported by film star Hillary Swank.
Blue Water Run is billed as a round the world relay race that involves 20 runners in 60 different countries. The runners will be on the road for 95 days.
To me, it’s quite refreshing when famous celebrities use their influence to fast track campaigns to improve the living conditions of the world’s poor. These problems usually rank at the bottom – if ever discussed at all – of the priorities of the powers-that-be during the previous G8 summits. Will the issue of a steady supply clean drinking water for poor communities be ever discussed on the Heiligendamm G8 summit? The Bush Administration will probably “hog” the summit with the issues concerning their “missile defense program.”
For a minimum donation of US$30, you can lend a helping hand in providing a safe and steady supply of clean drinking water for the world’s poorest communities. For more details, just go to www.blueplanetrun.org.
Sustainable Tropical Hardwoods Anyone?
While the global powers-that-be wrangle in the Heiligendamm G8 over how the Kyoto Protocol threatens their “industry”, some entrepreneurs are saving the planet via sustainable business practices.
By: Vanessa Uy
Tropical hardwoods harvested by sustainable means and have ecological certification has been in vogue lately with top- notch European furniture designers. These woods are priced by the designers not only for their exquisite quality but also the fact that you can purchase one guilt-free. Finally, we can now experience the pride of ownership of beautiful tropical hardwood furniture in our own homes without the guilt that used to come with these items like deforestation and/or swindling indigenous tribes from an honest and fair transaction.
A German company called Unique Wood imports rare tropical hardwoods from Paraguay that are grown and harvested by sustainable means with the attendant certification. As you know, the concept and practice of sustainable forestry was invented in Germany in the 19th Century. So it’s only right for her to set an example for the rest of the world.
A German business consulting firm, GTZ train the local Paraguayan wood suppliers on sound business practices while maintaining the environmentally friendly ethos that keeps the tropical hardwood supply sustainable. Just as well because the demand in Europe for tropical hardwoods has increased over the past few years. At present, only 5% of Paraguay’s original forest remain today. When Unique Wood’s suppliers harvest tropical hardwoods, nothing is wasted. The excess limbs and branches are turned into charcoal with ecological certification in keeping in line with sustainable development so that the biodiversity of the local forests are preserved. Sadly, not all –if enough- of Paraguay’s forest resources are harvested and managed in a sustainable manner.
By: Vanessa Uy
Tropical hardwoods harvested by sustainable means and have ecological certification has been in vogue lately with top- notch European furniture designers. These woods are priced by the designers not only for their exquisite quality but also the fact that you can purchase one guilt-free. Finally, we can now experience the pride of ownership of beautiful tropical hardwood furniture in our own homes without the guilt that used to come with these items like deforestation and/or swindling indigenous tribes from an honest and fair transaction.
A German company called Unique Wood imports rare tropical hardwoods from Paraguay that are grown and harvested by sustainable means with the attendant certification. As you know, the concept and practice of sustainable forestry was invented in Germany in the 19th Century. So it’s only right for her to set an example for the rest of the world.
A German business consulting firm, GTZ train the local Paraguayan wood suppliers on sound business practices while maintaining the environmentally friendly ethos that keeps the tropical hardwood supply sustainable. Just as well because the demand in Europe for tropical hardwoods has increased over the past few years. At present, only 5% of Paraguay’s original forest remain today. When Unique Wood’s suppliers harvest tropical hardwoods, nothing is wasted. The excess limbs and branches are turned into charcoal with ecological certification in keeping in line with sustainable development so that the biodiversity of the local forests are preserved. Sadly, not all –if enough- of Paraguay’s forest resources are harvested and managed in a sustainable manner.
Is There an Alternative to the Heiligendamm G8?
With the somewhat failed promise of the Gleneagles G8 back in 2005 on African aid, will the current G8 be better?
By: Vanessa Uy
Aside from Sir Bob Geldof’s and Bono’s anti-poverty campaigns, nobody today seems to remember – or feign interest – about the hollow rhetoric of the Gleneagles G8. With its failed promise to provide a 50 billion dollar- a- year aid package for Africa. Do we really need an alternative to G8? Since it’s inception back in 1975, G8 – or was it called G7 back then – has always been perceived globally as a “promise formulating” rather than a “problem solving” summit.
Groups who are opposed to G8 range from riot inciting “anarchists” who are not that far removed from your typical European “soccer hooligans”, to legitimate anti-G8 groups like ATTAC, Justice Now, Interventionist Left, and the most famous of them all: Greenpeace. ATTAC with its battle cry of “The world is not for sale!” appeal to those who are disenfranchised with the overly bureaucratic organizations like G8. To me, G8 is a fundamentally flawed organization due to its extremely limited legislative powers. Especially now, with the vastly differing views on how to tackle climate change between the United States and the European Union.
As the United States continues to “hog” the Heiligendamm G8’s proceedings with rhetoric on the justification of the Bush Administration’s “Missile Defense Program” that has increased the tension between Washington and the Kremlin not seen since Cold War days. An alternative summit has started in Rostock to discuss issues that the powers-that-be of the G8 summit are too squeamish to discuss like AIDS, global poverty, fair trade, and human rights to name just a few. Organized by Tillmann Günter, the Alternative Summit 2007 in Rostock serves to empower cause- oriented groups who are voicing their concerns that the global powers- that- be seem – or choose – to ignore.
By: Vanessa Uy
Aside from Sir Bob Geldof’s and Bono’s anti-poverty campaigns, nobody today seems to remember – or feign interest – about the hollow rhetoric of the Gleneagles G8. With its failed promise to provide a 50 billion dollar- a- year aid package for Africa. Do we really need an alternative to G8? Since it’s inception back in 1975, G8 – or was it called G7 back then – has always been perceived globally as a “promise formulating” rather than a “problem solving” summit.
Groups who are opposed to G8 range from riot inciting “anarchists” who are not that far removed from your typical European “soccer hooligans”, to legitimate anti-G8 groups like ATTAC, Justice Now, Interventionist Left, and the most famous of them all: Greenpeace. ATTAC with its battle cry of “The world is not for sale!” appeal to those who are disenfranchised with the overly bureaucratic organizations like G8. To me, G8 is a fundamentally flawed organization due to its extremely limited legislative powers. Especially now, with the vastly differing views on how to tackle climate change between the United States and the European Union.
As the United States continues to “hog” the Heiligendamm G8’s proceedings with rhetoric on the justification of the Bush Administration’s “Missile Defense Program” that has increased the tension between Washington and the Kremlin not seen since Cold War days. An alternative summit has started in Rostock to discuss issues that the powers-that-be of the G8 summit are too squeamish to discuss like AIDS, global poverty, fair trade, and human rights to name just a few. Organized by Tillmann Günter, the Alternative Summit 2007 in Rostock serves to empower cause- oriented groups who are voicing their concerns that the global powers- that- be seem – or choose – to ignore.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Mount Everest Rubbish Problem
A problem that’s long overdue for a clean- up, can the Japanese team tackle this problem single-handedly?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since, mountaineers from distant land’s flock to Nepal to fulfil their ambitions to reach to the summit of Mount Everest. The worlds journalist-at-large continually seem to ignore the rubbish problem that’s been steadily piling up around Mount Everest. Threatening to spoil the pristine nature of the surrounding landscape.This even earned the area surrounding Mount Everest as "The highest garbage dump in the world."
In May 29, 2007-a Japanese team led by acclaimed mountaineer Ken Noguchi is probably the first organized Mount Everest clean-up crew. Ken Noguchi and his team have their work cut out for them. Especially in the “death zone” where the air is so thin no human can survive for prolonged periods. This is where spent oxygen bottles litter the landscape and the odd human remains lay were they originally fell because even top sherpas don’t have enough strength to recover bodies from the “death zone.” Ken Noguchi and team’s commendable efforts are set to coincide with the anniversary of the first successful scaling of Mount Everest back in 1953 by Sir Edmund Hillary and acclaimed sherpa Tensing Norgay.
The Japanese teams efforts will undoubtedly be welcomed with open arms by the global mountaineering community since humanitarian efforts like these around the Himalayas are few and far between. Ken Noguchi and his team’s efforts rank those with Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenseng Norgay’s Educational Fund that the two set up to provide free education to the children of sherpas.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since, mountaineers from distant land’s flock to Nepal to fulfil their ambitions to reach to the summit of Mount Everest. The worlds journalist-at-large continually seem to ignore the rubbish problem that’s been steadily piling up around Mount Everest. Threatening to spoil the pristine nature of the surrounding landscape.This even earned the area surrounding Mount Everest as "The highest garbage dump in the world."
In May 29, 2007-a Japanese team led by acclaimed mountaineer Ken Noguchi is probably the first organized Mount Everest clean-up crew. Ken Noguchi and his team have their work cut out for them. Especially in the “death zone” where the air is so thin no human can survive for prolonged periods. This is where spent oxygen bottles litter the landscape and the odd human remains lay were they originally fell because even top sherpas don’t have enough strength to recover bodies from the “death zone.” Ken Noguchi and team’s commendable efforts are set to coincide with the anniversary of the first successful scaling of Mount Everest back in 1953 by Sir Edmund Hillary and acclaimed sherpa Tensing Norgay.
The Japanese teams efforts will undoubtedly be welcomed with open arms by the global mountaineering community since humanitarian efforts like these around the Himalayas are few and far between. Ken Noguchi and his team’s efforts rank those with Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenseng Norgay’s Educational Fund that the two set up to provide free education to the children of sherpas.
Japan versus the International Whaling Commission
Is Japan making the International Whaling Commission unable to execute its mandate in maintaining the welfare of the worlds shrinking whale population?
By: Vanessa Uy
The International Whaling Commission’s venue this year: 59th Annual IWC Meeting Anchorage Alaska 2007- promises to improve the present conditions of the world’s whales. Except they had not been able to stop Japan from hunting whales with impunity-all in the name of “scientific research.” Since the 1986 whaling moratorium, Japan has been steadily increasing “scientific catch” quotas that present day quotas are double that of 10 years ago. Japan has been able to do this because of some legal loophole of the IWC “Article 8” which permits scientific whaling. Whaling is never humane though because it results in the whale dying a slow painful death, which usually lasts 90 minutes on average.
Japan’s plea to the International Whaling Commission to restart whaling in the name of tradition only generates worldwide condemnation. This is quite paradoxical because almost all of Japanese youths no longer follow the tradition of eating whale meat. Because of this increasingly large quantities of whale meat now languish in Japan’s cold storage facilities. The Japanese chapter of Greenpeace has been appalled by the Japanese government’s planned resumption of large scale whaling despite of the huge whale meat surplus.
Various environmental groups like Greenpeace are increasingly concerned on the IWC allowing the subsistence whaling of indigenous groups because these groups use vessels intended for large scale industrial whaling. This oversight needs to be reevaluated by the IWC.
Today only 36,000 sperm whales remain in our oceans and the humpback whale-the favorite of whale watchers due to their acrobatic leaps-are only 10,000 strong. And remember; humpback whales are featured in the movie “Star Trek: The Voyage Home.” This movie is considered a beginner’s guide to whale conservation by most environmentalists. The only species of whale whose numbers is on the rise are the minkie whale. Even then, environmental groups doubt that their present population can support the scale of industrial whaling that prevailed in the last century. Japans desperation to restart her whaling industry has forced her to resort to vote buying on poor member countries of the IWC via development aid.
By: Vanessa Uy
The International Whaling Commission’s venue this year: 59th Annual IWC Meeting Anchorage Alaska 2007- promises to improve the present conditions of the world’s whales. Except they had not been able to stop Japan from hunting whales with impunity-all in the name of “scientific research.” Since the 1986 whaling moratorium, Japan has been steadily increasing “scientific catch” quotas that present day quotas are double that of 10 years ago. Japan has been able to do this because of some legal loophole of the IWC “Article 8” which permits scientific whaling. Whaling is never humane though because it results in the whale dying a slow painful death, which usually lasts 90 minutes on average.
Japan’s plea to the International Whaling Commission to restart whaling in the name of tradition only generates worldwide condemnation. This is quite paradoxical because almost all of Japanese youths no longer follow the tradition of eating whale meat. Because of this increasingly large quantities of whale meat now languish in Japan’s cold storage facilities. The Japanese chapter of Greenpeace has been appalled by the Japanese government’s planned resumption of large scale whaling despite of the huge whale meat surplus.
Various environmental groups like Greenpeace are increasingly concerned on the IWC allowing the subsistence whaling of indigenous groups because these groups use vessels intended for large scale industrial whaling. This oversight needs to be reevaluated by the IWC.
Today only 36,000 sperm whales remain in our oceans and the humpback whale-the favorite of whale watchers due to their acrobatic leaps-are only 10,000 strong. And remember; humpback whales are featured in the movie “Star Trek: The Voyage Home.” This movie is considered a beginner’s guide to whale conservation by most environmentalists. The only species of whale whose numbers is on the rise are the minkie whale. Even then, environmental groups doubt that their present population can support the scale of industrial whaling that prevailed in the last century. Japans desperation to restart her whaling industry has forced her to resort to vote buying on poor member countries of the IWC via development aid.
Friday, May 25, 2007
11th Hour: Last Call to Stop Global Warming
With the box office success and political impact of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” will Leonardo Di Caprio’s “11th Hour” do the same.
By: Vanessa Uy
Another “environmental opus” coming you’re way via the 60th Cannes Film Festival. I just hope that the hype generated by these two environmentally conscientious works doesn’t downplay the seriousness surrounding the issue of climate change and/or global warming. I haven’t yet seen “11th Hour” in it’s entirety, but the trailer suggest it’s about those pro-Bush/pro-Republican climatologists who kept the proof of global warming from reaching the policymakers on Capitol Hill. The film is a very thorough explanation of the world’s policymaker’s current mad-dash to formulate laws to lessen the impact of global warming. Even my friends who served during the 1991 Operation: Desert Storm predicted that by the year 2000, cars will be run by something other than gasoline as they witnessed first hand the carnage caused by the industrialized world’s lust for petroleum.
By: Vanessa Uy
Another “environmental opus” coming you’re way via the 60th Cannes Film Festival. I just hope that the hype generated by these two environmentally conscientious works doesn’t downplay the seriousness surrounding the issue of climate change and/or global warming. I haven’t yet seen “11th Hour” in it’s entirety, but the trailer suggest it’s about those pro-Bush/pro-Republican climatologists who kept the proof of global warming from reaching the policymakers on Capitol Hill. The film is a very thorough explanation of the world’s policymaker’s current mad-dash to formulate laws to lessen the impact of global warming. Even my friends who served during the 1991 Operation: Desert Storm predicted that by the year 2000, cars will be run by something other than gasoline as they witnessed first hand the carnage caused by the industrialized world’s lust for petroleum.
Beyond the Rhetoric: The Philippine Anti-Blast Fishing Campaign
No longer the “toothless law” it once was, will the Philippine anti-blast fishing law work this time around?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since the post World War II economic reconstruction period, blast fishing – a fishing method that’s all but outlawed throughout the civilized world – gained notoriety here in the Philippines. It seems like anyone who can cobble up an ammonium nitrate based IED (improvised explosive device) is “good to go” for blast fishing, despite of the possible fatal injury to the fisherman and the long term damage that’s inflicted to our fragile coral reef systems. Even after years of illegal blast fishing, studies revealed that the seas surrounding the Philippine islands – especially in the Visayan region – are deemed more bio diverse than Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. According to Nygiel B. Armada a FISH fisheries manager, the Visayan seas contain more than 26 tons of fish per square kilometer. Despite of this apparent abundance, marine resources –like fish- need to be managed to maintain sustainability. Illegal fishing methods like blast fishing threaten the sustainability of our fish stocks. The damage caused by blast fishing goes beyond the crater formed by the explosive device, ultra-fine coral fragments created from the resulting blast can smother the surrounding coral bed causing long term damage that can drastically affect the local fishing industry.
Recent anti-blast fishing campaigns- especially those being spearheaded by Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa are seen by local environmental pressure groups as a long-awaited “White Knight” that will eliminate the problem of illegal fishing in one fell swoop. While setting up patrols to police the relatively lawless Visayan seas. Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa’s program of penalizing perpetrators to the full extent of the law, market denial of fish caught by illegal means coupled with an educational campaign explaining to the communities dependent on the fishing industry the follies of blast fishing. Their program proved to be very effective because blast fishing seems to have vanished almost overnight. Unfortunately, this angered the lawless elements that are involved in the illegal blast fishing industry.
Sadly, Jojo de la Victoria was assassinated in a desperate attempt by the organized crime elements involved in the illegal fishing industry to stop the very successful anti-blast fishing campaign that he and Tony Oposa had started. The anti-blast fishing campaign was not daunted by the murder of one of the founders. Instead, it gained the much- needed impetus to stop blast fishing once and for all. Bantay Dagat patrols with the help of NBI personnel equipped with M-16 rifles conduct raids on known blast fishing hot spots/strongholds, and confiscating paraphernalia used for blast fishing. At the same time educating these communities that blast fishing can deprive them of their livelihood by destroying the coral reefs that fishes need to spawn.
Unlike the Marcos-era Bantay Dagat of yore, which are no more than mere rhetoric aimed to please the local and international environmental pressure groups. The campaign established by Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa is more likely to succeed and last because the police action is backed by an effective educational campaign. As Tony Oposa said on the environmental effects of blast fishing: “another blast is one blast too many.”
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since the post World War II economic reconstruction period, blast fishing – a fishing method that’s all but outlawed throughout the civilized world – gained notoriety here in the Philippines. It seems like anyone who can cobble up an ammonium nitrate based IED (improvised explosive device) is “good to go” for blast fishing, despite of the possible fatal injury to the fisherman and the long term damage that’s inflicted to our fragile coral reef systems. Even after years of illegal blast fishing, studies revealed that the seas surrounding the Philippine islands – especially in the Visayan region – are deemed more bio diverse than Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. According to Nygiel B. Armada a FISH fisheries manager, the Visayan seas contain more than 26 tons of fish per square kilometer. Despite of this apparent abundance, marine resources –like fish- need to be managed to maintain sustainability. Illegal fishing methods like blast fishing threaten the sustainability of our fish stocks. The damage caused by blast fishing goes beyond the crater formed by the explosive device, ultra-fine coral fragments created from the resulting blast can smother the surrounding coral bed causing long term damage that can drastically affect the local fishing industry.
Recent anti-blast fishing campaigns- especially those being spearheaded by Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa are seen by local environmental pressure groups as a long-awaited “White Knight” that will eliminate the problem of illegal fishing in one fell swoop. While setting up patrols to police the relatively lawless Visayan seas. Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa’s program of penalizing perpetrators to the full extent of the law, market denial of fish caught by illegal means coupled with an educational campaign explaining to the communities dependent on the fishing industry the follies of blast fishing. Their program proved to be very effective because blast fishing seems to have vanished almost overnight. Unfortunately, this angered the lawless elements that are involved in the illegal blast fishing industry.
Sadly, Jojo de la Victoria was assassinated in a desperate attempt by the organized crime elements involved in the illegal fishing industry to stop the very successful anti-blast fishing campaign that he and Tony Oposa had started. The anti-blast fishing campaign was not daunted by the murder of one of the founders. Instead, it gained the much- needed impetus to stop blast fishing once and for all. Bantay Dagat patrols with the help of NBI personnel equipped with M-16 rifles conduct raids on known blast fishing hot spots/strongholds, and confiscating paraphernalia used for blast fishing. At the same time educating these communities that blast fishing can deprive them of their livelihood by destroying the coral reefs that fishes need to spawn.
Unlike the Marcos-era Bantay Dagat of yore, which are no more than mere rhetoric aimed to please the local and international environmental pressure groups. The campaign established by Jojo de la Victoria and Tony Oposa is more likely to succeed and last because the police action is backed by an effective educational campaign. As Tony Oposa said on the environmental effects of blast fishing: “another blast is one blast too many.”
Friday, May 18, 2007
Are Evangelical Christians Killing Mother Nature
The proof is provided via BBC’s World Service broadcast on the 14 of May 2007. Looks like people like me are not “that-kind-of-crazy” anymore.
By: Vanessa Uy
At first, it’s kind of hard for me to tell if this is legitimate news broadcast or one of those Tom Clancy novel-made-for-TV-type things. As every Tom Clancy fan can attest the character driven nature style of his works, this particular BBC news broadcast made Dr. Thomas Ice of Liberty University look and act like the “main villain” on “The Sum of All Fears.” Dr. Thomas Ice unabashedly expressed his views on a legitimate news broadcast that Global Warming and other environmental concerns of recent times are just “Hollywood-left-wing-propaganda.” Is Dr. Ice trying really hard to throw out of the window the concerns of the majority of “Rational Americans” want to achieve. The “Rational Americans” want to tell the rest of the world that not all Americans are not egotistical narcissists who want all of the planets natural resources only for themselves. Maybe, Dr. Ice doesn’t want all of America to be environmentally conscious because this is an important stepping stone in establishing a meaningful dialogue between the Islamic World and the West.
Even before the post- September 11, 2001 backlash, the impoverished peoples of the Islamic World has been left “holding the bag” so to speak due to the insensitive energy intensive lifestyles of the more-money-than-sense-Evangelical-Christian-powers-that-be making self-serving policies on Capitol Hill. Even though they are still a minority, they can easily trick Rational Americans like they did in the 2004 US Presidential Elections. The Evangelicals doctrine of greed, exploitation and unbridled materialism are one of-if not the- main reason of the proliferation of misery and suffering in the Islamic World. And I’m beginning to wonder why Osama Bin Laden didn’t specifically mention these people on his “Fatwah.”
By: Vanessa Uy
At first, it’s kind of hard for me to tell if this is legitimate news broadcast or one of those Tom Clancy novel-made-for-TV-type things. As every Tom Clancy fan can attest the character driven nature style of his works, this particular BBC news broadcast made Dr. Thomas Ice of Liberty University look and act like the “main villain” on “The Sum of All Fears.” Dr. Thomas Ice unabashedly expressed his views on a legitimate news broadcast that Global Warming and other environmental concerns of recent times are just “Hollywood-left-wing-propaganda.” Is Dr. Ice trying really hard to throw out of the window the concerns of the majority of “Rational Americans” want to achieve. The “Rational Americans” want to tell the rest of the world that not all Americans are not egotistical narcissists who want all of the planets natural resources only for themselves. Maybe, Dr. Ice doesn’t want all of America to be environmentally conscious because this is an important stepping stone in establishing a meaningful dialogue between the Islamic World and the West.
Even before the post- September 11, 2001 backlash, the impoverished peoples of the Islamic World has been left “holding the bag” so to speak due to the insensitive energy intensive lifestyles of the more-money-than-sense-Evangelical-Christian-powers-that-be making self-serving policies on Capitol Hill. Even though they are still a minority, they can easily trick Rational Americans like they did in the 2004 US Presidential Elections. The Evangelicals doctrine of greed, exploitation and unbridled materialism are one of-if not the- main reason of the proliferation of misery and suffering in the Islamic World. And I’m beginning to wonder why Osama Bin Laden didn’t specifically mention these people on his “Fatwah.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
