tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3902992894848250012024-03-05T22:48:24.008-08:00The rainbow insideMandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-21335884264482000842012-06-10T03:44:00.002-07:002012-06-10T03:49:04.060-07:00May I have your attention please?This one is for all those people out there - talk show hosts like Redi Thlabi, for example - who frequently voice the concept that "fat people just have no willpower, they could easliy lose weight if they wanted to". I would like you to note the following quote (and this blogger has seen similar comments from obesity experts worldwide): <span style="font-weight:bold;">"Weight status actually appears rather uncontrollable, regardless of one's willpower, knowledge, and dedication. Yet many people who are perceived as 'fat' are struggling in vain to lose weight in order to escape this painful social stigma. We need to rethink our approaches to, and views of, weight and obesity."</span><br /><br />Female fat prejudice persists even after weight loss, study finds<br /><br />Overweight women may never escape the painful stigma of obesity – even after they have shed the pounds, new research suggests.<br /><br />The study, by the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, The University of Manchester, and Monash University, examined whether anti-fat prejudice against women persisted even after they had lost significant weight and were now thin.<br /><br />The researchers asked young men and women to read vignettes describing a woman who had either lost weight (70 pounds/32 kilograms) or had remained weight stable, and who was either currently obese or currently thin. Participants were then asked their opinions about this woman on a number of attributes, such as how attractive they found her, and their overall dislike for fat people.<br /><br />The team found that participants in the study – published in the journal Obesity – expressed greater bias against obese people after reading about women who had lost weight than after reading about women who had remained weight stable, regardless of whether the weight-stable woman was thin or obese.<br /><br />"We were surprised to find that currently thin women were viewed differently depending on their weight history," said Dr Janet Latner, study lead at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, US. "Those who had been obese in the past were perceived as less attractive than those who had always been thin, despite having identical height and weight."<br /><br />One of the more disturbing findings from the study, the researchers noted, was that negative attitudes towards obese people increase when participants are falsely told that body weight is easily controllable.<br /><br />Co-author, Dr Kerry O'Brien, from the University of Manchester's School of Psychological Sciences and Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said: "The message we often hear from society is that weight is highly controllable, but the best science in the obesity field at the moment suggests that one's physiology and genetics, as well as the food environment, are the really big players in one's weight status and weight-loss.<br /><br />"Weight status actually appears rather uncontrollable, regardless of one's willpower, knowledge, and dedication. Yet many people who are perceived as 'fat' are struggling in vain to lose weight in order to escape this painful social stigma. We need to rethink our approaches to, and views of, weight and obesity."<br /><br />The findings, say the authors, demonstrate that residual obesity stigma persists against individuals who have ever been obese, even when they have lost substantial amounts of weight. Obesity stigma is so powerful and enduring that it appears to even outlast the obesity itself.<br /><br />Dr Latner added: "Descriptions of weight loss, such as those often promoted on television, may significantly worsen obesity stigma. Believing that obese people can easily lose weight may make individuals blame and dislike obese people more.<br /><br />"The findings demonstrate that residual obesity stigma persists against individuals who have ever been obese, even when they have lost substantial amounts of weight. Obesity stigma is so powerful and enduring that it may even outlast the obesity itself. Given the great number of people who may be negatively affected by this prejudice, obesity discrimination clearly needs to be reduced on a societal level."<br />(Published by EurekAlert, 29 May 2012)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-12347485333180738152012-05-25T11:06:00.001-07:002012-05-25T11:10:33.732-07:00Oh bugger...<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8KPt5_aoBp_8x87MbtOsyr8ObpyAxPzG4Osw6x8rQUTM0w6NPTjj7Lwh0a64nEmbrwUgKi_jw7JPIUq8dqkv-Ct27LeJb0LovKnq7OM2-KT3PbhRxRUnbbQnS1QslB3khAV3tMJfqhW6d/s1600/smokestacks.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8KPt5_aoBp_8x87MbtOsyr8ObpyAxPzG4Osw6x8rQUTM0w6NPTjj7Lwh0a64nEmbrwUgKi_jw7JPIUq8dqkv-Ct27LeJb0LovKnq7OM2-KT3PbhRxRUnbbQnS1QslB3khAV3tMJfqhW6d/s320/smokestacks.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5746534729807347986" /></a><br />China spurred a jump in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to their highest ever recorded level in 2011, offsetting falls in the United States and Europe, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday.<br /><br />CO2 emissions rose by 3.2 percent last year to 31.6 billion metric tons (34.83 billion tons), preliminary estimates from the Paris-based IEA showed.<br /><br />China, the world's biggest emitter of CO2, made the largest contribution to the global rise, its emissions increasing by 9.3 percent, the body said, driven mainly by higher coal use.<br /><br />"When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet," Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist told Reuters.<br /><br />Scientists say ensuring global average temperatures this century do not rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is needed to limit devastating climate effects like crop failure and melting glaciers.<br />(Reuters, 25 May 2012)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-55433126100527103882012-05-14T03:00:00.005-07:002012-05-14T03:13:36.169-07:00Diabetes: rethink necessary?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKcMEIRVXz6q2vLZqPsJ6hOVsaLS0R1rOClVTeBUgysGPLt9pWGnjYzjRnbvRDykwG8_MVkwUwe11jGPKed_OUKJLzhPpicjYQ3hs1sBOP9kLuomAMAaQo8iu8Ysc9X9_cuv5WgMRZoWno/s1600/eggs.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 294px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKcMEIRVXz6q2vLZqPsJ6hOVsaLS0R1rOClVTeBUgysGPLt9pWGnjYzjRnbvRDykwG8_MVkwUwe11jGPKed_OUKJLzhPpicjYQ3hs1sBOP9kLuomAMAaQo8iu8Ysc9X9_cuv5WgMRZoWno/s320/eggs.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5742329694030716034" /></a><br />The Swedes have done some of the most interesting research on diet and nutrition in recent years. Here, reported by AlpahGalileo Alerts this week, is something that adds weight (pardon the pun) to the low-carb/high fat lobby. I must say, the science is beginning to mount up.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">High-fat diet lowered blood sugar and improved blood lipids in diabetics<br />11 May 2012 Linköping Universitet<br />People with Type 2 diabetes are usually advised to keep a low-fat diet. Now, a study at Linköping University shows that food with a lot of fat and few carbohydrates could have a better effect on blood sugar levels and blood lipids.<br />The results of a two-year dietary study led by Hans Guldbrand, general practitioner, and Fredrik Nyström, professor of Internal Medicine, are being published in the prestigious journal Diabetologia. 61 patients were included in the study of Type 2, or adult-onset diabetes. They were randomized into two groups, where they followed either a low-carbohydrate (high fat) diet or a low-fat diet.<br />In both groups, the participants lost approximately 4 kg on average. In addition, a clear improvement in the glycaemic control was seen in the low-carbohydrate group after six months. Their average blood sugar level dropped from 58.5 to 53.7 mmol/mol (the unit for average blood glucose). This means that the intensity of the treatment for diabetes could also be reduced, and the amounts of insulin were lowered by 30%.<br />Despite the increased fat intake with a larger portion of saturated fatty acids, their lipoproteins did not get worse. Quite the contrary – the HDL, or ‘good’ cholesterol, content increased on the high fat diet.<br />No statistically certain improvements, either of the glycaemic controls or the lipoproteins, were seen in the low-fat group, despite the weight loss.</span><br /><br />Here's how they ate (the low-carb group was getting quite a lot of their daily intake from carbs, actually):<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">In the low-carbohydrate diet, 50% of the energy came from fat, 20% from carbohydrates, and 30% from protein. For the low-fat group the distribution was 30% from fat, 55-60% from carbohydrates, and 10-15% from protein, which corresponds to the diet recommended by the Swedish National Food Agency.</span>Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-12526621465969900342012-05-11T02:21:00.003-07:002012-05-11T03:10:58.263-07:00Why can't it rain?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3Bag0wzVw-0QTYNOFtRASVWrL2xnsmseHCqCqJ4BeDXoDys4ekoJg_sPWGWIuXSh7NMSWwr_8rVbahAR3yui_rPFSCl0x_-qGRFaNsVNRe8aEQtN_gP7DYhicsRe1PtFDaqPUJBsHMxx5/s1600/stormy.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3Bag0wzVw-0QTYNOFtRASVWrL2xnsmseHCqCqJ4BeDXoDys4ekoJg_sPWGWIuXSh7NMSWwr_8rVbahAR3yui_rPFSCl0x_-qGRFaNsVNRe8aEQtN_gP7DYhicsRe1PtFDaqPUJBsHMxx5/s320/stormy.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5741216059995613138" /></a><br />NAIROBI, Kenya—In the sprawling hills of the Kangundo district in Kenya’s Eastern Province, just a few hours outside of capital city Nairobi, Fred Kiambaa has been farming the same small, steep plot of land for more than 20 years.<br />Born and raised just outside Kathiini Village in Kangundo, Kiambaa knows the ups and downs of agriculture in this semi-arid region. He walks up a set of switchbacks to Kangundo’s plateaus to tend his fields each morning and seldom travels further than a few miles from his plot.<br />Right now, all that remains of his maize crop are rows of dry husks. Harvest season finished just two weeks ago, and the haul was meager this time around.<br />“Water is the big problem, it’s always water. We have many boreholes, but when there is no rain, it’s still difficult,” he said.<br />Kiambaa and his wife, Mary, only harvested 440 pounds of maize this season, compared to their usual 2,200. They have six children, meaning there will be many lean months before the next harvest, and worse: Though March is Kenya’s rainiest month, it’s been mostly dry so far.<br />“The rain surely is not coming well this year. Rain is the key. We can only pray,” he said.<br />(From http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/155376)<br /><br />The future - our African future - is here. Never mind the cautious weather service spoksepeople saying on air, "It's not unprecedented to have such warm weather in May," or "Of course, we do have years when rainfall is down" - this is a trend. It's years of unusual weather, months when the maxiumum temperatures rise daily (and I mean every day, day after day after day) up to four degrees celsius above normal. Radio presenters burble on about "such fabulous weather!" but we are starting to pay the price - for the global north's and our own South Africa's profligate use of fossil fuels - in poor crops and hunger. (I do hope the myriad stories like Fred Kimabaa's will be taken into account when the rich and powerful put their heads together at Rio+20.) <br />Last year, I saw a local atmospheric scientist present models of southern African climate for the next 80 years or so. It was one of the defining moments of my life. This is how I described it in the July issue of Skyways magazine:<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Pretoria: a lecture room at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research on a sunny late winter day. The equipment is modern and streamlined, the lecturer is an atmospheric modeller who speaks dispassionately, temperately, calmly, explaining the features of the map on-screen that shows southern Africa. And then he presses a key on his laptop, and all of a sudden, the audience is in a horror movie.<br />On the screen, the map ticks over with the regularity of a metronome, year by year, decade by decade: 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050… The colours that indicate temperature and rainfall change. Blue turns to peach which deepens to orange, to russet, to scarlet. I scrawl on my notepad, “Namibia, Angola, Botswana, gone, gone, gone!”<br />It’s been known for a long time that Africa would be one of the hardest-hit regions as climate change kicks in. But somehow, seeing the changes visually represented like this has a visceral effect. It’s got the heart-breaking impact and inevitability of a Greek tragedy.<br />Dr Francois Englebrecht, an atmospheric modeller at the CSIR, has done a range of models that peek into the future. Six simulations were performed in what is the largest experiment of its kind yet done on African terrain. Each of them gives slightly different results, but all show the same trends in the same areas.<br />Climatic features of our region dictate that we will buck the trend elsewhere in the world, in which a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. Southern Africa is going to be warmer and drier. We’re special in yet another way: actual observation shows that over the last century, our temperatures have risen in tandem with the rising temperatures around the world – but our increase is always almost exactly double that of the rest of the world’s average. The models mercilessly show this trend continuing into the far, foreseeable future.</span><br /><br /><br />Here’s a telling quote from one of Dr Engelbrecht's colleagues, quoted on www.liveeco.co.za:<br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Dr Constansia Musvoto from the Council for Scientific and industrial Research (CSIR) told members of the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) that agricultural production in Southern Africa is projected to be halved within the next 70 years as a result of climate change.<br />“Temperatures will increase by up to 6ºC, while rainfall will drop by as much as 40 percent in some parts of the region.” <br /></span>Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-20376290363634969432012-03-27T23:54:00.002-07:002012-03-28T00:00:49.226-07:00Smart Alec... NOT!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX8gLu6wsef5lY34JCco3ZzCP19wHxlJpO8MSGrIJcwhCY-jIR_-vT4SvOeh6AUZ_2gc8bwsPBSpuVSUDeyyTO9FCrBkEDqqJLYZ1HGDq3yNj88CBipmjhZEjnog6vNgFz_8K2gayRR6uJ/s1600/clever+monkey.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 306px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhX8gLu6wsef5lY34JCco3ZzCP19wHxlJpO8MSGrIJcwhCY-jIR_-vT4SvOeh6AUZ_2gc8bwsPBSpuVSUDeyyTO9FCrBkEDqqJLYZ1HGDq3yNj88CBipmjhZEjnog6vNgFz_8K2gayRR6uJ/s320/clever+monkey.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5724839337087245154" /></a><br />Caption: Clever monkey<br /><br />Am I glad I live in South Africa, where laws like this have not been passed (yet). This is a law in Tennessee which will govern how climate change is taught in classrooms.<br />"...the Tennessee bill is based on an ALEC model bill passed in May 2000. We explained at the time,<br /><br />'The bill's opening clause reads [PDF], 'The purpose of this act is to enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state by requiring that all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies shall…'<br /><br /> Provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner.<br /> <br /> Provide instruction in critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific and economic controversies.<br /> <br /> Be presented in language appropriate for education rather than for propagandizing.<br /> <br /> Encourage students to explore different perspectives and form their own opinions.<br /> <br /> Encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.<br /> <br /> Not be designed to change student behavior, attitudes or values.<br /> <br /> Not include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political action activities.'<br /> <br /><br />To summarize, under this model bill and its relatives, global warming will be taught as a "theory" among other "credible theories," including those unscientific "theories" peddled by the well-paid "merchants of doubt." <br /><br />This, of course, flies in the face of the well-accepted scientific consensus, which has proven global warming as the harsh reality, time and time again. The science speaks for itself, and thefossil fuel money funding climate change deniers speaks for itself. <br /><br />The Tennessee Bill<br /><br />Key portions of the Tennessee bills are as follows (emphases mine):<br /> <br /><br /> "The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and humancloning, can cause controversy."<br /> <br /> "The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to…respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues."<br /> <br /> Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."<br /> <br /><br />Look familar? It should. <br /><br />The bill was opposed by a broad-based coalition, including the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Nashville Tennessean, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the National Earth Science Teachers Association, the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, and all eight Tennessee members of the National Academy of Sciences.<br /><br />These voices of reason were no opposition to ALEC, its corporate backers, and the politicians who serve them, which saw the bill pass with little opposition whatsoever."<br />(From http://truth-out.org/news/item/8136-alec-climate-change-denial-model-bill-passes-in-tennessee )Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-10114511134417510362012-03-06T06:57:00.004-08:002012-03-06T07:05:02.442-08:00Stormy weather<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW9Wd3rJEtviWUDrO-EQy3UMB2cQO-decgU6tD6vxU4uNVPYF4Mtf9PvQejck1rFPi2M-jYmvH67EYrRBQVg-2l9pKZ4BGXFbWCQzKDhz4aNFDy7TuaiHGZ9NaNsuK3oHrzpCaEXZMADXt/s1600/stormy.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 190px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW9Wd3rJEtviWUDrO-EQy3UMB2cQO-decgU6tD6vxU4uNVPYF4Mtf9PvQejck1rFPi2M-jYmvH67EYrRBQVg-2l9pKZ4BGXFbWCQzKDhz4aNFDy7TuaiHGZ9NaNsuK3oHrzpCaEXZMADXt/s320/stormy.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5716800172864844898" /></a><br />Waiver: these are NOT tropical storm clouds!<br /><br />The South-West Indian Ocean Basin is apparently one of the most dangerous tropical storm regions in the world, with an average of 80 deaths a year. Apparently Hurricane Irina, which just caused havoc along the KwaZulu-Natal coast, brings the death toll for this year so far to 164 - and there are still at least two months of the season to go.<br />is this fall-out from warmer seas due to climate change, one wonders?Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-41752687866429932802012-02-26T06:47:00.004-08:002012-02-26T06:58:51.554-08:00That's not the way!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih472TlFTWkDDSbwBMp2jw5wlNyLqRWJ9RD6AITbAh-dP9HRRKW8hAAVSZ6e4SDrBWrTaoKxr2DEHokDyONwXAB0eiyDSubNb6RKVuiInEBxGyEoBlvS8qOxXw6EH_XXTRx6kmvdxnEXKi/s1600/plum+bloss.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih472TlFTWkDDSbwBMp2jw5wlNyLqRWJ9RD6AITbAh-dP9HRRKW8hAAVSZ6e4SDrBWrTaoKxr2DEHokDyONwXAB0eiyDSubNb6RKVuiInEBxGyEoBlvS8qOxXw6EH_XXTRx6kmvdxnEXKi/s320/plum+bloss.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5713458844813255314" /></a><br />Caption: Unmodified plum blossom<br /><br /><br />Dear Bill Gates. He so wants a techie solution for everyone. After all he's invested in TerraPower, the travelling wave reactor company (which he touts as the solution to our energy problems, even though it's decades off becoming a reality). <br />Now here he is, going all GM on us. (And pro-geo-engineering, heaven save us - see the end of the article...)<br /><br />Published on Thursday, February 23, 2012 by Common Dreams<br />Bill Gates: We Need Genetically Modified Seeds<br />Gates' yield-increasing claims widely refuted by studies<br />- Common Dreams staff<br /><br />At a forum of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in Rome today, Microsoft founder Bill Gates pressed the need for genetically modified seeds in the developing world, and the need for a "digital revolution" to meet the needs of the world's farmers. Gates' claims that genetically modified crops double or triple smaller farmers' yields have been challenged by recent research.<br /><br /> Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Thursday called for a "digital revolution" to alleviate world hunger by increasing agricultural productivity through satellites and genetically-engineered seed varieties.<br /><br /> "We have to think hard about how to start taking advantage of the digital revolution that is driving innovation including in farming," the U.S. billionaire philanthropist said in a speech at the UN rural poverty agency IFAD in Rome.<br /><br /> "If you care about the poorest, you care about agriculture. We believe that it's possible for small farmers to double and in some cases even triple their yields in the next 20 years while preserving the land," Gates said. [...]<br /><br /> AFP adds that Gates announced $200 million (150 million euros) in new grants from his foundation to finance research on a new type of drought-resistant maize. [...]<br /><br />As John Vidal reported for the Guardian, the claims that genetically modified seeds can increase gains have been challenged by research:<br /><br /> Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.<br /><br />And a 2009 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that genetically modified seeds failed to increase yields in U.S. crops:<br /><br /> Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.<br /><br /> "The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven't enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the UCS Food and Environment Program and author of the report. "In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results."<br /><br />Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, told Common Dreams:<br /><br /> “Bill Gates may be a smart guy in terms of computer programming, and an expert on how to become a billionaire, but he obviously knows nothing about agriculture other than what Monsanto and the biotech industry have told him. Eighteen years after the introduction of the first genetically engineered crops, there is no evidence, including data from the pro-biotech USDA, that these energy and chemical-intensive crops increase yield, improve nutrition, or provide greater yields under adverse weather conditions of drought or heavily rains. On the contrary hundreds of studies, including those by peer-reviewed scientists and the U.N.’s FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) indicate that organic crops provide significantly higher levels of vitamins, nutrients, and cancer-fighting anti-oxidants; that organic crops have significantly higher yields during periods of drought and torrential rain; and that agro-ecological or organic farms produce 2-10 times great yields than industrial-scale chemical and GMO farms. In others words, not only can organic farming and ranching feed the world, but in fact it is the only way that we will ever be able to feed the world.”<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />Recent reports also show Gates behind climate engineering efforts, as he is among other wealthy individuals financially backing scientists to lobby governments to push geoengineering, raising concerns that this small group may have a large impact on further decisions on geoengineering.Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-6362523585423399742012-02-22T00:41:00.002-08:002012-02-22T00:56:27.445-08:00Environmental pollutants - could they be causing weight gain?There's been quite a lot of research in recent years on the impact of various pollutants on weight gain. About four years ago, a Spanish study linked exposure to hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in the umblicial cords of newborns, and found that those who'd been exposed in the womb were more likely to be overwieght at six. (This chemical is mainly used to treat seeds, so it had implications for those living in and around agricultural areas.)<br />Now there's new evidence that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) may also be linked to weight gain. PFOA is ubiquitous - it's found even in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and all the inhabited continents, and is now found in animals, poor sods. It's been made since 1951, and was used in non-stick surfaces (they say it's not anymore), outdoor clothing, treatments for carpets and tiles and more.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Environmental pollutant linked with overweight</span><br /><br />The levels of the environmental pollutant perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that mothers had in their blood during pregnancy increased the risk of obesity in their daughters at 20 years of age. The findings come from a recent study of Danish women in which the Norwegian Institute of Public Health participated.<br /><br />In recent decades, there has been a sharp increase in the number of overweight children and adults worldwide. It is suspected that diet and exercise alone cannot explain this large weight increase.<br /><br />Researchers suggest that the increasing levels of endocrine disrupters in the environment may be a possible contributing factor. Therefore, this study was established and discovered the following:<br /><br /> Daughters of mothers with the highest concentrations of PFOA in the blood during pregnancy were three times as likely to be overweight at the age of about 20 years as daughters of mothers with the lowest PFOA levels.<br /> The calculations took into account many variables, such as maternal weight and lifestyle factors.<br /> An association was also found between PFOA exposure before birth and elevated levels of insulin and leptin, two hormones that are linked to obesity.<br /> Levels of insulin and leptin were also elevated in the sons of mothers with high PFOA, but the relationship was weaker than for girls.<br /> There was no increased risk of development of obesity among the sons. <br /><br />What does this mean for us?<br /><br />It is still too early to say what this might mean for us. The study indicates that factors such as environmental pollutants, in addition to diet and physical activity, play a role in the obesity epidemic seen today although this remains to be confirmed by similar studies.<br />EurekAlert, 22 February 2012Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-39518048452066671862012-02-19T06:29:00.000-08:002012-02-19T06:40:05.486-08:00Summer temperatures and food security<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKlpgdaTu0TeKgkg8FS2qUEsJNdLrac9LyaqqqNB_9RIHatWb42EpvgrUQ8H7qS2Ao-sgMsxx5qUFUxMqSJGxNcvrvZyK6UXNyzW4fAB5iUQUgmseopOupvJNCtDuj5BSSzPnYbENWRYLc/s1600/food+security.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 228px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKlpgdaTu0TeKgkg8FS2qUEsJNdLrac9LyaqqqNB_9RIHatWb42EpvgrUQ8H7qS2Ao-sgMsxx5qUFUxMqSJGxNcvrvZyK6UXNyzW4fAB5iUQUgmseopOupvJNCtDuj5BSSzPnYbENWRYLc/s320/food+security.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5710856375192534082" /></a><br />Summer temperatures will rise (or rise and fall) to a point where you can't grow certain crops. And the losers are? Wait, I have the envelope right here: "the biggest impacts will be on Europe, Africa and South America.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Models underestimate future temperature variability; Food security at risk</span><br /><br />Climate warming caused by greenhouse gases is very likely to increase the variability of summertime temperatures around the world by the end of this century, a University of Washington climate scientist said Friday. The findings have major implications for food production.<br /><br />Current climate models do not adequately reflect feedbacks from the relationship between the atmosphere and soil, which causes them to underestimate the increase of variability in summertime temperatures, said David Battisti, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.<br /><br />While warmer temperatures already have implications for food production in the tropics, the new findings suggest the increase in the volatility of summertime temperatures will have serious effects in grain-growing regions of Europe and North and South America, Battisti said.<br /><br />"If there's greater variability, the odds of the temperature being so high that you can't grow a crop are greater," he said.<br /><br />"In terms of regional and global food security, it's not good news."<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Earlier research has shown that by the end of this century, the increase in average growing season temperature, if other factors remain the same, will likely reduce yields of rice, corn and soybean 30 to 40 percent. Already rice yields in the tropics are being affected by higher temperatures, affecting nations such as Indonesia, which frequently imports rice to stabilize prices, Battisti said.<br /><br />In addition, the scientists say global warming will have greater impacts than previously thought on the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a tropical phenomenon that has global impact on climate and food production. Their conclusions are based on geological and other proxy records of climate and El Niño from the last 10,000 years, plus recent analyses of long-term climate changes because of global warming.<br /><br />The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body conducting ongoing assessments of climate change, has estimated that future month-to-month temperature variability during summer months is likely to be greater in some places and less in some places, but should stay roughly constant in many places.<br /><br />But the new modeling work, Battisti said, shows most areas can expect to see greater variability in summer temperatures between now and 2085, with the biggest impacts in Europe, Africa and South America.<br /><br />"The increased variability will be pretty ubiquitous. You will see it pretty much everywhere."<br /><br />Increased temperature variability compounds the loss of production because of higher average temperatures, Battisti said. Add higher fertilizer prices and other market pressures to the mix "and food insecurity is likely to be higher than it has been for some time."<br />(EurekAlert 17 Feb 2012)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-9461689080944008692012-02-10T00:37:00.000-08:002012-02-10T00:44:40.507-08:00Stormy weatherDid you know that the South-West Indian Ocean cyclone basin is one of the deadliest in the world, with about 80 people dying a year? The season begins in mid-November and ends around end April - although it can linger for a month more around Mauritius and Reunion. Apparently it averages about 10 storms a year. There's a new one brewing, and NASA caught footage of it. It's expectd to make landfall in Madagascar on 13 Feburary. I wonder if this cyclone basin is becoming more active?
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/40637.php?from=204616Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-4252172524362246522012-02-01T00:07:00.000-08:002012-02-01T00:15:43.769-08:00Thalassa, oh thalassa!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKcbt6RlrinHmnDhet6kb8iPI1mKUuwH18Ybgkcvnrt1ut4D0mtKSJROLAwX1UaZH_P5di9iPP4iVE32UkNZsyjoTSZ_Y2T-9XUkAw_OaH7FxVs3XN3wjMycHvDHWfbQiTyUJFt90tOk2X/s1600/ct+sea.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 219px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKcbt6RlrinHmnDhet6kb8iPI1mKUuwH18Ybgkcvnrt1ut4D0mtKSJROLAwX1UaZH_P5di9iPP4iVE32UkNZsyjoTSZ_Y2T-9XUkAw_OaH7FxVs3XN3wjMycHvDHWfbQiTyUJFt90tOk2X/s320/ct+sea.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704077881673338514" /></a><br />Unprecedented, man-made trends in ocean's acidity<br /> <br /> <br />Oh, the sea! Though not unexpected, this is such awful news: <br /><br />Nearly one-third of CO2 emissions due to human activities enters the world's oceans. By reacting with seawater, CO2 increases the water's acidity, which may significantly reduce the calcification rate of such marine organisms as corals and mollusks. The extent to which human activities have raised the surface level of acidity, however, has been difficult to detect on regional scales because it varies naturally from one season and one year to the next, and between regions, and direct observations go back only 30 years.<br /><br />Combining computer modeling with observations, an international team of scientists concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 100 to 200 years have already raised ocean acidity far beyond the range of natural variations. The study is published in the January 22 online issue of Nature Climate Change. <br />EurekAlert, 22 January 2012Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-52848971686571700512012-01-31T05:01:00.000-08:002012-01-31T05:08:54.368-08:00Our oldest friend<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsMCgvrB-E8RJvP10ORcg2w-iPShmjCG1NGs0hAZql8wX969jDnIHpBYd2DMD-lBERGnqRzr4aXuvuOatsJeC3QExeTbZmdMFHlnHqcf7qXamZzsSxSMEj55bWtK9Dx8gdDrAR6SB6H10c/s1600/DSCF3407.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 312px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsMCgvrB-E8RJvP10ORcg2w-iPShmjCG1NGs0hAZql8wX969jDnIHpBYd2DMD-lBERGnqRzr4aXuvuOatsJeC3QExeTbZmdMFHlnHqcf7qXamZzsSxSMEj55bWtK9Dx8gdDrAR6SB6H10c/s320/DSCF3407.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5703782357347048178" /></a><br />Dog skull dates back 33,000 years<br /><br />An ancient dog skull, preserved in a cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia for 33,000 years, presents some of the oldest known evidence of dog domestication and, together with equally ancient dog remains from a cave in Belgium, indicates that domestication of dogs may have occurred repeatedly in different geographic locations rather than with a single domestication event.<br /><br />In other words, man's best friends may have originated from more than one ancient ancestor, contrary to what some DNA evidence previously has indicated.<br /><br />"Both the Belgian find and the Siberian find are domesticated species based on morphological characteristics," said Greg Hodgins, a researcher at the University of Arizona's Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and co-author of the study that reports the find.<br /><br />"Essentially, wolves have long thin snouts and their teeth are not crowded, and domestication results in this shortening of the snout and widening of the jaws and crowding of the teeth."<br /><br /><br />The Altai Mountain skull is extraordinarily well preserved, said Hodgins, enabling scientists to make multiple measurements of the skull, teeth and mandibles that might not be possible on less well-preserved remains. "The argument that it is domesticated is pretty solid," said Hodgins. "What's interesting is that it doesn't appear to be an ancestor of modern dogs." [...]<br /><br />At 33,000 years old, the Siberian skull predates a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum, or LGM, which occurred between about 26,000 and 19,000 years ago when the ice sheets of Earth's last ice age reached their greatest extent and severely disrupted the living patterns of humans and animals alive during that time. Neither the Belgian nor the Siberian domesticated lineages appear to have survived the LGM.<br /><br />However, the two skulls indicate that the domestication of dogs by humans occurred repeatedly throughout early human history at different geographical locations, which could mean that modern dogs have multiple ancestors rather than a single common ancestor.<br /><br />"In terms of human history, before the last glacial maximum people were living with wolves or canid species in widely separated geographical areas of Euro-Asia, and had been living with them long enough that they were actually changing evolutionarily," said Hodgins. "And then climate change happened, human habitation patterns changed and those relationships with those particular lineages of animals apparently didn't survive."<br /><br />"The interesting thing is that typically we think of domestication as being cows, sheep and goats, things that produce food through meat or secondary agricultural products such as milk, cheese and wool and things like that," said Hodgins.<br /><br />"Those are different relationships than humans may have with dogs. The dogs are not necessarily providing products or meat. They are probably providing protection, companionship and perhaps helping on the hunt. And it's really interesting that this appears to have happened first out of all human relationships with animals."<br />(From EurekAlert, 24 January 2012)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-18966417216379716422012-01-30T01:07:00.000-08:002012-01-30T01:15:00.659-08:00Over the peak: the limits of fossil fuel<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigtdkb3wOVXphoAYj2ZyxW_aw4EZjDH_08NzIDHDxaUgVIHGfF4vIHcPoa9CYtARg5Jl_2pl9IcLeq4gnT7kxQcMXR1-i2K1hg9kXSm0B78HNFCrD3Q-1GAqVIlrDrxisw2fNbjhyJZY_I/s1600/kruger+cars.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigtdkb3wOVXphoAYj2ZyxW_aw4EZjDH_08NzIDHDxaUgVIHGfF4vIHcPoa9CYtARg5Jl_2pl9IcLeq4gnT7kxQcMXR1-i2K1hg9kXSm0B78HNFCrD3Q-1GAqVIlrDrxisw2fNbjhyJZY_I/s320/kruger+cars.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5703351001980597170" /></a><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Caption: Trips to the Kruger National Park are getting more expensive!</span><br /><br />Sometime back in 2008, I think, I wrote about the shocking things that had happened to oil prices - they'd leapt from a 'norm' of $35-40 a barrel a couple of years earlier to a new norm of around $70-80. Now the new norm seems to be around $100. All just as predicted by peak-oil experts. Here's some new corroborating evidence:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Commentary in Nature: Can economy bear what oil prices have in store?</span><br /><br />Stop wrangling over global warming and instead reduce fossil-fuel use for the sake of the global economy.<br /><br />That's the message from two scientists, one from the University of Washington and one from the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, who say in the current issue of the journal Nature (Jan. 26) that the economic pain of a flattening oil supply will trump the environment as a reason to curb the use of fossil fuels.<br /><br />"Given our fossil-fuel dependent economies, this is more urgent and has a shorter time frame than global climate change," says James W. Murray, UW professor of oceanography, who wrote the Nature commentary with David King, director of Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.<br /><br />The "tipping point" for oil supply appears to have occurred around 2005, says Murray, who compared world crude oil production with world prices going back to 1998. Before 2005, supply of regular crude oil was elastic and increased in response to price increases. Since then, production appears to have hit a wall at 75 million barrels per day in spite of price increases of 15 percent each year.<br /><br />"As a result, prices swing wildly in response to small changes in demand," the co-authors wrote. "Others have remarked on this step change in the economies of oil around the year 2005, but the point needs to be lodged more firmly in the minds of policy makers."<br /><br />For those who argue that oil reserves have been increasing, that more crude oil will be available in the future, the co-authors wrote: "The true volume of global proved reserves is clouded by secrecy; forecasts by state oil companies are not audited and appear to be exaggerated. More importantly, reserves often take 6 - 10 years to drill and develop before they become part of the supply, by which time older fields have become depleted." Production at oil fields around the world is declining between 4.5 percent and 6.7 percent per year, they wrote.<br /><br />"For the economy, it's production that matters, not how much oil might be in the ground," Murray says. In the U.S., for example, production as a percentage of total reserves went from 9 percent to 6 percent in the last 30 years.<br /><br />"We've already gotten the easy oil, the oil that can be produced cheaply," he says. "It used to be we'd drill a well and the oil would flow out, now we have to go through all these complicated and expensive procedures to produce the oil."<br /><br />The same is true of alternative sources such as tar sands or "fracking" for shale gas, Murray says, where supplies may be exaggerated and production is expensive. Take the promise of shale gas and oil: A New York Times investigative piece last June reported that "the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents and an analysis of data from thousands of wells."<br /><br />Production at shale gas wells can drop 60 to 90 percent in the first year of operation, according to a world expert on shale gas who was one of the sources for the commentary piece. Murray and King built their commentary using data and information from more than 15 international and U.S. government reports, peer-reviewed journal articles, reports from groups such as the National Research Council and Brookings Institution and association findings.<br /><br />Stagnant oil supplies and volatile prices take a toll on the world economy. Of the 11 recessions in the U.S. since World War II, ten were preceded by a spike in oil prices, the commentary noted.<br /><br />"Historically, there has been a tight link between oil production and global economic growth," the co-authors wrote. "If oil production can't grow, the implication is that the economy can't grow either."<br /><br />Calculations from the International Monetary Fund, for example, say that to achieve a 4 percent growth in the global economy in the next five years, oil production must increase about 3 percent a year.<br /><br />"Yet to achieve that will require either an heroic increase in oil production, ... increased efficiency of oil use, more energy-efficient growth or rapid substitution of other fuel sources," according to the commentary. "Economists and politicians continually debate policies that will lead to a return to economic growth. But because they have failed to recognize that the high price of energy is a central problem, they haven't identified the necessary solutions: weaning society off fossil fuel."<br /><br />The commentary concludes: "This will be a decades-long transformation and we need to start immediately. Emphasizing the short-term economic imperative from oil prices must be enough to push governments into action now."Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-68517359136557042502012-01-30T01:01:00.000-08:002012-01-30T01:05:05.094-08:00Cyclone FunsoHere's the beast that caused all the trouble in Hoedspruit and the Lowveld of South Africa. NASA published a stunning satellite image here: http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/40179.php?from=203461.Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-59940916855014583462012-01-29T01:07:00.000-08:002012-01-29T08:32:48.556-08:00Who Owns the World?World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, 2011<br /><br />By Nick Buxton, Transnational Institute, January 27, 2012<br /><br />This week as the world's elites met in the swiss skiing village of Davos, Transational Institute's (TNI) Corporate Power project launched a series of powerful infographics, to expose the Global 0.001%, the corporations they run and the cost of corporate power.<br /><br />The infographics can be seen here: http://www.tni.org/report/state-corporate-power-2012<br /><br />Some of the most compelling stats that stand out from the infographics are:<br />• 8 of the top 10 richest companies in the world are fossil fuel companies<br />• 1% of the world's companies, almost all banks, control 40% of the shares of the world's major corporations<br />• 0.15% of the world's population control two-thirds of world GDP, and with their assets could pay the costs of universal and primary school education for 190 year. <br />• A tiny percentage of the global population, 0.001%, control $15.4 trillion dollars.Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-39308418190622645012012-01-24T11:46:00.000-08:002012-01-24T11:54:02.962-08:00Sweet difference<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsmxPSvPrC1RxfSuANW0uo9ZVdzOLttaYHt79rxbLXZPeX6syPfhYt1pMoWVErLdYxx_Y-HxtKoDp92IYJeOVhr5NyzuLCO4cyagsaQv1RMY5Mc2Cc21bkt8gHPxEVz91W8fEdYvG_Wvmw/s1600/sugar.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 287px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsmxPSvPrC1RxfSuANW0uo9ZVdzOLttaYHt79rxbLXZPeX6syPfhYt1pMoWVErLdYxx_Y-HxtKoDp92IYJeOVhr5NyzuLCO4cyagsaQv1RMY5Mc2Cc21bkt8gHPxEVz91W8fEdYvG_Wvmw/s320/sugar.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5701289180606968066" /></a><br />Yes, there IS a difference between sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup:<br /><br />CU School of Medicine researchers look at effects of 2 common sweeteners on the body<br /><br />AURORA, Colo. (Jan. 23, 2012) - With growing concern that excessive levels of fructose may pose a great health risk – causing high blood pressure, kidney disease and diabetes – researchers at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, along with their colleagues at the University of Florida, set out to see if two common sweeteners in western diets differ in their effects on the body in the first few hours after ingestion. The study, recently published in the journal Metabolism, took a closer look at high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and table sugar (sucrose) and was led by Dr MyPhuong Le (now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Colorado) and Dr Julie Johnson, a Professor of Pharmacogenomics at the University of Florida.<br /><br />Both HFCS and sucrose have historically been considered to have nearly identical effects on the body. But this study finds that indeed there is a difference between the two. They found that the makeup of the sugars resulted in differences in how much fructose was absorbed into the circulation, and which could have potential impact on one's health. Sucrose is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose that is bonded together as a disaccharide (complex carbohydrate) and HFCS is a mixture of free fructose (55%) and free glucose (45%). It's the difference in fructose amount that appears to create the ill health effects on the body.<br /><br />Their study was conducted at the University of Florida, where they evaluated 40 men and women who were given 24 ounces of HFCS- or sugar-sweetened soft drinks. Careful measurements showed that the HFCS sweetened soft drinks resulted in significantly higher fructose levels than the sugar-sweetened drinks. Fructose is also known to increase uric acid levels that have been implicated in blood pressure, and the HFCS-sweetened drinks also resulted in a higher uric acid level and a 3 mm Hg greater rise in systolic blood pressure.<br /><br />Dr Richard Johnson, a coauthor in the study and Chief of the Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension at the University of Colorado, commented "Although both sweeteners are often considered the same in terms of their biological effects, this study demonstrates that there are subtle differences. Soft drinks containing HFCS result in slightly higher blood levels of fructose than sucrose-sweetened drinks, "said Johnson. "The next step is for new studies to address whether the long-term effects of these two sweeteners are different."<br />###Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-2193279451127461492012-01-20T02:59:00.001-08:002012-01-20T03:14:12.984-08:00Yum!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB4WEh_AYeeddX7ZCguwT7gDu9IRxi3KlnHahor_E_00UlCoFWSv_Eu-vFucZV-L_svonG7XwiLqaP6tKF4D_IJbuldNVGhJev4XkLhoPmUi72zaWUFubL9gqYykEBL0lpClpDhbT3baBX/s1600/cheese.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 274px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB4WEh_AYeeddX7ZCguwT7gDu9IRxi3KlnHahor_E_00UlCoFWSv_Eu-vFucZV-L_svonG7XwiLqaP6tKF4D_IJbuldNVGhJev4XkLhoPmUi72zaWUFubL9gqYykEBL0lpClpDhbT3baBX/s320/cheese.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699670906133275714" /></a><br />Now I can eat a little dairy again, I'm dying to make my favourite salad:<br /><br />Marvellous mielie salad<br />If your guests like blue cheeses, this is very moreish.<br />Serves 4<br />Vegetarian<br />1 red onion, diced<br />2 tomatoes, diced<br />1 red pepper, deseeded and diced<br />3 baby cucumbers, sliced lengthways into quarters and then sliced<br />10-20 black olives, cut into quarters<br />½ cup fresh mielies, stripped from the cob and lightly cooked (you can also heat frozen mielies)<br />Gorgonzola cheese, crumbled – this really is to taste. Some people love this cheese, others find it too much, so you might want to serve it on the side instead of mixing in.<br />Vinaigrette<br />1/3 cup avocado or grapeseed oil<br />1/6 cup white balsamic vinegar<br />A dash of Turkish-fig-infused balsamic vinegar or<br />A dash of raspberry vinegar<br />1/3 tspn brown sugar<br /><br />Mix all the salad ingredients together (leaving out the cheese if preferred). Mix the vinaigrette and stir into the salad just before serving (don’t use it all; the salad should not be overly wet). Serve with crusty fresh bread.Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-31781306689050357022012-01-19T05:45:00.000-08:002012-01-19T05:54:32.764-08:00Call me a tree hugger, would you?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7K9m1QBD1piMq38nxmHMIAOhMSfFTEU9ctOlFIEYX5Y_5IsrBnU9TeS96yJ3zUfponGzDQo7eUF5CFcjU1fL0qSmbxutR4wgar6YJCKiH-uHBlOpjMWZ5enPZT_cOwceCoYFGdoHgGaGK/s1600/trehugger.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 301px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7K9m1QBD1piMq38nxmHMIAOhMSfFTEU9ctOlFIEYX5Y_5IsrBnU9TeS96yJ3zUfponGzDQo7eUF5CFcjU1fL0qSmbxutR4wgar6YJCKiH-uHBlOpjMWZ5enPZT_cOwceCoYFGdoHgGaGK/s320/trehugger.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699340875091359330" /></a><br />The first tree huggers were 294 men and 69 women belonging to the Bishnois branch of Hinduism, who, in 1730, died while trying to protect the trees in their village from being turned into the raw material for building a palace. They literally clung to the trees, while being slaughtered by the foresters. But their action led to a royal decree prohibiting the cutting of trees in any Bishnoi village. And now those villages are virtual wooded oases amidst an otherwise desert landscape. Not only that, the Bishnois inspired the Chipko movement (which means “to cling”) that started in the 1970s, when a group of peasant women in Northeast India threw their arms around trees designated to be cut down. Within a few years, this tactic, also known as tree satyagraha, had spread across India, ultimately forcing reforms in forestry and a moratorium on tree felling in Himalayan regions.<br />Bryan Farrell, Waging Nonviolence<br />Posted on January 9, 2012, AlternetMandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-47507879371345377402011-12-22T06:21:00.000-08:002011-12-22T06:25:44.916-08:00Not so civil, please!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEZfxgRcO0AkOSDP6eY-w4trOUnlgk7q3gijFEhqF-9L7j6gSgFX8ugkkO3oI8UHDfIZwKbhjfwpn-Y65ZIqXPk7njN5T_qZWJPw5WDlMEOCC9SFIpKH7OAV_PJdd-ZeHHAalsi_zzSvCr/s1600/every+generation.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 254px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEZfxgRcO0AkOSDP6eY-w4trOUnlgk7q3gijFEhqF-9L7j6gSgFX8ugkkO3oI8UHDfIZwKbhjfwpn-Y65ZIqXPk7njN5T_qZWJPw5WDlMEOCC9SFIpKH7OAV_PJdd-ZeHHAalsi_zzSvCr/s320/every+generation.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5688958697676994242" /></a><br />When did we become such compliant people?<br />One of the most striking aspects of COP17 in Durban early this month was the relative tameness of the protests. Altjhough I was told by one policeman at the Global Day of Action that “these people can be dangerous, you know”, little sign of that was seen. And on the night of 9 December, when a number of people seemed keen to occupy the precinct to make their voices heard by the negotiators, the protest seems to have been rather peacefully organised and negotiated away.<br />Meanwhile, here in Johannesburg, citizens are enraged that we’ve had a road tolling system imposed on us without consultation, which will become active in February. This will significantly increase commuting costs. (Under other circumstances, I’d be in favour of something like this – it’s one of a number of tactics necessary to reduce the number of cars on the road and boost use of public transport. But because, a) public transport is poor, with trains and buses only on limited routes, and minibus taxis notoriously unsafe and driven by badly trained drivers and b) there’s been a huge lack of transparency in the process, it makes me as angry as the next resident.)<br />It’s a situation that screams for civil disobedience. If even ten percent of vehicles refuse to install the new ‘e-tag’ licence plates necessary for smooth processing, and then refuse to pay fines, the entire system would freeze within a month or two. Yet I have heard many people discussing this, on talk radio and in public spaces, wondering if it’s okay to do something illegal. Does civil disobedience not have to be “within the law”, I heard one person ask.<br />Good grief, and you live in South Africa, where we have a splendid record of civil disobedience! That’s what civil disobedience IS: a campaign in which numbers of people state that they will disobey laws or regulations with a certain end in mind – usually it’s getting those laws off the statute books. When people burnt their passes, it was an act of civil disobedience, and very much illegal, with the aim of getting the laws about the dompas wiped out.<br />The roots of a police state are not the apparatus thereof, it’s the willingness of the people to ‘go along’, to accept, to be policed. That, in my view, was the mindset shown on 9 December: security says we must get out of the building, so let’s negotiate the best way to do this. (To be fair, though, I wasn’t there, not being accredited to the UN precinct, so there may have been circumstances I’m not aware of.)<br />It’s not the negotiators who get us places, in my experience. They’re very useful once the wall has been partially smashed, once the square has been occupied… but action is necessary to shift the blockages. If we want to change the world, we need to grow some more spine!<br />“Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance. It is one form of civil resistance.” (Wikipedia)<br />“…the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes.” (dictoionary.com)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-51391003725060844912011-12-18T03:06:00.000-08:002011-12-18T03:26:34.794-08:00But hey, let's wait till 2020!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiknDGD1LZZOhcB641GXzTSIrWTG0PRclRbFtbMjL1-ermNPKMWF5YiYGF1Wp23zDe8qZ2hToUNsBjSIwfooWlpigpTi1BLCVLkrYJVC77f0ySPQikGOAQQ-V6v6lFyHaBs40SFIq0B_1f5/s1600/DSCF1663.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiknDGD1LZZOhcB641GXzTSIrWTG0PRclRbFtbMjL1-ermNPKMWF5YiYGF1Wp23zDe8qZ2hToUNsBjSIwfooWlpigpTi1BLCVLkrYJVC77f0ySPQikGOAQQ-V6v6lFyHaBs40SFIq0B_1f5/s320/DSCF1663.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5687425881910948050" /></a><br />Caption:<br />A Southern Right Whale off Gansbaai, South Africa - one of the many creatures who are at risk along with Homo sap.<br /><br />Here's more news which has long been expected, and should have given the suits at COP17 a sense of urgency. But will anything light a fire under the tails of governments and corporates? <br /><br />Shock as Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice Releases Deadly Greenhouse Gas<br />Russian research team astonished after finding 'fountains' of methane bubbling to surface<br />by Steve Connor<br /><br />Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.<br /><br />The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.<br /><br />In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.<br /><br />"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."<br /><br />Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.<br /><br />Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.<br /><br />In late summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 10,000 square miles of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, both seismic and acoustic, to monitor the "fountains" or plumes of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.<br /><br />"In a very small area, less than 10,000 square miles, we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed," Dr Semiletov said. "We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were a kilometre or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was a hundred times higher than normal."<br /><br />Dr Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.<br />(The Independent, 14 December 2011)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-64481104031869444172011-12-17T07:42:00.000-08:002011-12-17T08:43:06.736-08:00Citizens get it - their governments don't<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPUprnN3xxXp41FQjnVHuYKLhBIaHEGgWXzr1TiQFqdINyeEr8Uw3XjicSu7pVRA8uKF5QWm_v7MLjbOLbjy7uAReI7LX3OPJy5I6LvmTJFZpkWDAxj9JFX4N5EP1QKmkICiEtrCKvgzqa/s1600/DSCF3006.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPUprnN3xxXp41FQjnVHuYKLhBIaHEGgWXzr1TiQFqdINyeEr8Uw3XjicSu7pVRA8uKF5QWm_v7MLjbOLbjy7uAReI7LX3OPJy5I6LvmTJFZpkWDAxj9JFX4N5EP1QKmkICiEtrCKvgzqa/s320/DSCF3006.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5687133341392887538" /></a><br /><br />A recent survey by Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 65 percent of Americans polled “said that global warming is affecting weather in the United States”; half believe it is caused “mostly by human activities,” up 3 points since May. A similar survey by the nonprofit environmental group ecoAmerica found that 57 percent of Americans realize, “If we don’t do something about climate change now, we can end up having our farmland turned to desert.” (From Salon.com, 16 Dec 2011)<br />According to the latest Eurobarometer opinion poll (October 2011), 68% of Europeans polled consider climate change a very serious problem (up from 64% in 2009). Altogether 89% see it as a serious problem (either 'very serious' or 'fairly serious'). On a scale of 1 (least) to 10 (most), the seriousness of climate change is ranked at 7.4, against 7.1 in 2009. (From Media Lens, 17 Dec 2011)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-77023689149954512672011-12-13T07:47:00.000-08:002011-12-13T07:58:13.256-08:00Nice work if you can get it<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYx08puOsMRdWzvIUwTV6OQBzlYb5HfuDI-UD6bux1PSxvW-i_XBh1rNtPnStlwWLnn5K0HU8cjPEO50TZUEuJimIwcsz02CnEarU97gIkiwFf60sqNQ4VCLcvC8v7xs5_0MsCMXzgqcrc/s1600/dec+13.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYx08puOsMRdWzvIUwTV6OQBzlYb5HfuDI-UD6bux1PSxvW-i_XBh1rNtPnStlwWLnn5K0HU8cjPEO50TZUEuJimIwcsz02CnEarU97gIkiwFf60sqNQ4VCLcvC8v7xs5_0MsCMXzgqcrc/s320/dec+13.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5685642260435041170" /></a><br />If you've attended every single one of the UNFCCC's Conference's of the Parties since the first in 1995, you'll have visited:<br />Berlin, Germany<br />Geneva, Switzerland<br />Kyoto, Japan<br />Buenos Aires, Argentina<br />Bonn, Germany<br />The Hague, Netherlands<br />Bonn again (lol!)<br />Marrakech, Morocco,<br />New Delhi, India<br />Milan, Italy<br />Buenos Aires again<br />Montreal, Canada<br />Nairobi, Kenya<br />Bali, Indonesia<br />Poznan, Poland<br />Copenhagen, Denmark<br />Cancun, Mexico<br />Durban, South Africa<br />And joy of joys, the next one will take you to Qatar in the Middle East, where the temperatures late in the year will be in the upper twenties Celsius (good thing it won't happen in July, when 41 degrees is the daily average high). In 2005, Qatar had the highest per capita carbon emissions, at 55.5 tons, so COP18 will take place right in the hot-spot in many ways. Women can legally drive in Qatar, which will make life easier for delegates, but for NGOs and protesters, be aware that the death penalty is used 'mainly for threats against national security'.<br />Nice work if you can get it. A sort of temperature-tourism. All paid for by taxpayers. (In Durban's case, stories surfaced in the immediate aftermath of COP17 teasing out exactly how many millions of tourist dollars the moveable feast had brought to Durban, as delegates ate, drank and bought the obligatory soapstone carvings and beadwork necklaces.)<br />How long will this circus continue to roam the world? What happened in Durban constitutes a grave threat to the world: we are simply not going to get it together fast enough to deal with anthropogenic global warming. But, as one person said to me, it's "the only game in town". How else, she askedf, are we supposed to get governments and business and all to negotiate and take action?<br />I believe it's time to deflate the circus tent and take away the clown's unicycle. Change has almost always happened because a groundswell of the people wishes it, not because governments or other major roleplayers do. <br />Governments have a very short time-horizon: they're looking to the next election. Some corporates have an even shorter one, but in the fossil fuel game, it is quite often longer - if you're mining a seam of coal, you may have to plan for a life of twenty years and up; coal-fired power stations are in operation for forty years and more. But that's not as long as yours and mine: our time horizon should only begin to fade away as our great-grandchildren utter their first cries.<br />So we need to pick up the reins of power and tell them what we want. We want food, clean water, clean air, health and a stable climate for ourselves and our seed. That is not a political goal: it's one that virtually every person, of every stripe, can share, whether you're a conservative or a radical lefty, Ba'hai or Roman Catholic, farmer or retail assistant.<br />How can we do this? It will take creativity and guts and commitment, but it can be done - there are examples in history to inspire us. I will be thinking a lot on these lines in the days ahead, and will share my thoughts here. ("Is there anybody out there?" Pink Floyd)Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-90504454706702274542011-12-11T01:16:00.000-08:002011-12-11T01:33:03.748-08:00Deadly delay<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9e1tH1AuJtbXO8ewuCZhww7ZVX_4Qb4MsHWzPDUxyarGUOJHh_1edDVus-zgWFkcsRPSV99rdGor_62VPBfiNnE4P_lcoI7xbs4FKuDH6w5vZGKvX4gRm1d6EngaxJMQNmsIvNf6ePmG_/s1600/last+post.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 213px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9e1tH1AuJtbXO8ewuCZhww7ZVX_4Qb4MsHWzPDUxyarGUOJHh_1edDVus-zgWFkcsRPSV99rdGor_62VPBfiNnE4P_lcoI7xbs4FKuDH6w5vZGKvX4gRm1d6EngaxJMQNmsIvNf6ePmG_/s320/last+post.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684801174842496706" /></a><br />After a whole day of driving and not listening to news of any kind as COP17 was coming to its end, I woke up to the depressing yet expected news that real action will be delayed until 2020. <br />I can only quote Professor Hugh Montgomery again: "If we delay writing a prescription for eight years, we will find ourself writing a death certfificate instead".<br />Below is Climate Justice Now!'s statement:<br /><br />2011 COP17 succumbs to Climate Apartheid!<br />Dec 11<br /><br />Antidote is Cochabamba Peoples’ Agreement!<br /><br />CJN! Press release, 10 December, Durban, S. Africa<br /><br />Decisions resulting from the UN COP17 climate summit in Durban constitute a crime against humanity, according to Climate Justice Now! a broad coalition of social movements and civil society. Here in South Africa, where the world was inspired by the liberation struggle of the country’s black majority, the richest nations have cynically created a new regime of climate apartheid<br /><br />“Delaying real action until 2020 is a crime of global proportions,” said Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International. “An increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius, permitted under this plan, is a death sentence for Africa, Small Island States, and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. This summit has amplified climate apartheid, whereby the richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%.”<br /><br />According to Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for the Plurinational State of Bolivia, “It is false to say that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been adopted in Durban. The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP, with no commitments for emission reductions from rich countries. This means that the Kyoto Protocol will be on life support until it is replaced by a new agreement that will be even weaker.”<br /><br />The world’s polluters have blocked real action and have once again chosen to bail out investors and banks by expanding the now-crashing carbon markets – which like all financial market activities these days, appear to mainly enrich a select few.<br /><br />“What some see as inaction is in fact a demonstration of the palpable failure of our current economic system to address economic, social or environmental crises,” said Janet Redman, of the Washington- based Institute for Policy Studies. “Banks that caused the financial crisis are now making bonanza profits speculating on our planet’s future. The financial sector, driven into a corner, is seeking a way out by developing ever newer commodities to prop up a failing system.”<br /><br />Despite talk of a “roadmap” offered up by the EU, the failure in Durban shows that this is a cul-de-sac, a road to nowhere. Spokespeople for Climate Justice Now! call on the world community to remember that a real climate program, based on planetary needs identified by scientists as well as by a mandate of popular movements, emerged at the World People’s Summit on Climate Change and Mother Earth in Bolivia in 2010. The Cochabamba People’s Agreement, brought before the UN but erased from the negotiating text, offers a just and effective way forward that is desperately needed.<br /><br />For more information, contact: Mike Dorsey – mkdorsey@professordorsey.com, or call+27 (0)79 863 8756 or +1-734-945-6424 Nick Buxton – nick@tni.org or call +27(0)81 589 8564 or +1 530 902 3772 ADDITIONAL<br /><br />BACKGROUND<br /><br />On technology<br /><br />“The technology discussions have been hijacked by industrialized countries speaking on behalf of their transnational corporations,” said Silvia Ribeiro from the international organization ETC Group. Critique of monopoly patents on technologies, and the environmental, social and cultural evaluation of technologies have been taken out of the Durban outcome. Without addressing these fundamental concerns, the new technology mechanism will merely be a global marketing arm to increase the profit of transnational corporations by selling dangerous technologies to countries of the South, such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology or geoengineering technologies.”<br /><br />On agriculture<br /><br />“The only way forward for agriculture is to support agro-ecological solutions, and to keep agriculture out of the carbon market,” said Alberto Gomez, North American Coordinator for La Via Campesina, the world’s largest movement of peasant farmers. “Corporate Agribusiness, through its social, economic, and cultural model of production, is one of the principal causes of climate change and increased hunger. We therefore reject Free Trade Agreements, Association Agreements, and all forms of the application of Intellectual Property Rights to life, current technological packages (agrochemicals, genetic modification) and those that offer false solutions (biofuels, nanotechnology, and climate smart agriculture) that only exacerbate the current crisis.”<br /><br />On REDD + and forest carbon projects<br /><br />“REDD+ threatens the survival of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities. Mounting evidence shows that Indigenous Peoples are being subjected to violations of their rights as a result of the implementation of REDD+-type programs and policies,” declared The Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life. Their statement, released during the first week of COP17, declares that “REDD+ and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) promote the privatization and commodification of forests, trees and air through carbon markets and offsets from forests, soils, agriculture and could even include the oceans. We denounce carbon markets as a hypocrisy that will not stop global warming.”<br /><br />On the World Bank and the Global Climate Fund<br /><br />“The World Bank is a villain of the failed neoliberal economy,” says Teresa Almaguer of Grassroots Global Justice Alliance in the U.S. “We need a climate fund managed by participatory governance, not by an anti-democratic institution that is responsible for much of the climate disruption and poverty in the world.” “The Green Climate Fund has been turned into the Greedy Corporate Fund,” said Lidy Nacpil, of Jubilee South. “The fund has been hijacked by the rich countries, on their terms, and set up to provide more profits to the private sector”<br /><br />On the Green Economy<br /><br />“We need a climate fund that provides finance for peoples of developing countries that is fully independent from undemocratic institutions like the World Bank. The Bank has a long track record of financing projects that exacerbate climate disruption and poverty” said Lidy Nacpil, of Jubilee South. “The fund is being hijacked by the rich countries, setting up the World Bank as interim trustee and providing direct access to money meant for developing countries to the private sector. It should be called the Greedy Corporate Fund!”<br /><br />Climate policy is making a radical shift towards the so-called “green economy,” dangerously reducing ethical commitments and historical responsibility to an economic calculation on cost-effectiveness, trade and investment opportunities. Mitigation and adaption should not be treated as a business nor have its financing conditioned by private sector and profit-oriented logic. Life is not for sale.<br /><br />On climate debt<br /><br />“Industrialized northern countries are morally and legally obligated to repay their climate debt,” said Janet Redman, Co-director of the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies. “Developed countries grew rich at the expense of the planet and the future all people by exploiting cheap coal and oil. They must pay for the resulting loss and damages, dramatically reduce emissions now, and financially support developing countries to shift to clean energy pathways.”<br /><br />Developed countries, in assuming their historical responsibility, must honor their climate debt in all its dimensions as the basis for a just, effective, and scientific solution. The focus must not be only on financial compensation, but also on restorative justice, understood as the restitution of integrity to our Mother Earth and all its beings. We call on developed countries to commit themselves to action. Only this could perhaps rebuild the trust that has been broken and enable the process to move forward.<br /><br />On real solutions<br /><br />“The only real solution to climate change is to leave the oil in the soil, coal in the hole and tar sands in the land. “ Ivonne Yanez, Acción Ecologica, Ecuador<br /><br />For more information, contact:<br /><br />Mike Dorsey – mkdorsey@professordorsey.com, or call+27 (0)79 863 8756 or +1-734-945-6424<br /><br />Nick Buxton – nick@tni.orgor call +27(0)81 589 8564 or +1 530 902 3772Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-33207298346783250632011-12-09T12:00:00.000-08:002011-12-09T12:19:54.919-08:00Whose process is this?Captions: Bobby Peek of groundWork addresses the last remaining activists on 9 December; Africa will be hardest hit; some youngsters joined the all-night vigil, under tarpaulin due to the rain.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwR6Q3bCsJK4MzklBmRcnvvXZ5txGCyciaxLFePKEDt5fbj7f5makMs4-_6HSeeMHBhaif6E_NhUFKW9LCESKaP5PrMhsYcgDltSzIg2mmaNP9Aw4f09VT8xm5shXvtWYp_V95S0EEKNO4/s1600/dec9+4.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 224px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwR6Q3bCsJK4MzklBmRcnvvXZ5txGCyciaxLFePKEDt5fbj7f5makMs4-_6HSeeMHBhaif6E_NhUFKW9LCESKaP5PrMhsYcgDltSzIg2mmaNP9Aw4f09VT8xm5shXvtWYp_V95S0EEKNO4/s320/dec9+4.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225472806900178" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHKK9utSnyZ6HyQRrQSG-Bk-lCRba59lcq-ro-DXdUXiLdasAs-E1T7ZiOaVDV5CoqLebMSDFayy344fjFCWFzQfHx4SOypHS-uELItrYl9hr3debNLvNQUjohvh3mJn1b1Be0Z0mIff8f/s1600/dec9+5.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 301px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHKK9utSnyZ6HyQRrQSG-Bk-lCRba59lcq-ro-DXdUXiLdasAs-E1T7ZiOaVDV5CoqLebMSDFayy344fjFCWFzQfHx4SOypHS-uELItrYl9hr3debNLvNQUjohvh3mJn1b1Be0Z0mIff8f/s320/dec9+5.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225470611421410" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3xxb-gtUIWCLVGlXgO3rZJ9pECdlvDZ0Rc0dRe1WsJVEByK0H1vaurchb4kjKf4iKXzRfPoFzPc3Tk84e_4GBrVHxRP0d9-QSQTCWmgA6b3jceEY540JkXLSuXohS8QhFi9XIYfbhWxIv/s1600/dec9+1.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3xxb-gtUIWCLVGlXgO3rZJ9pECdlvDZ0Rc0dRe1WsJVEByK0H1vaurchb4kjKf4iKXzRfPoFzPc3Tk84e_4GBrVHxRP0d9-QSQTCWmgA6b3jceEY540JkXLSuXohS8QhFi9XIYfbhWxIv/s320/dec9+1.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684225481319691266" /></a><br />The Conference of the Parties is winding to a close. We've seen a document which suggests that the result will be the launching of "a process in order to develop a legal framework applicable to all" (this, of course, means developed and developing countries), a framework agreement committing countries to new targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, "after 2020". Yippee. This puts us on course to (at least) hit a global increase of 4 degrees, which means 8 for us in southern Africa.<br />As one woman said at the traditional all-night vigil which started at 7:00 pm (she's been to three COPs and attended vigils at each one), "If this isn't working" - as plainly, after 17 years, it isn't - "then what do we do?"<br />I doffed my journalist's hat and made an activist's plea. Let's take it away from them, I said. Let's mobilise people to put pressure on them - the governments and corporates inside the UN precinct. They live, breathe and make money off us, so we do have power over them. Civil disobedience campaigns, boycotts, persistent picketting, we've used them before with success. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." (Margaret Mead)<br />We just have to get the message through to people that this is not a political cause, this is about things that do and will matter to them where they live: food, water, air, health, life. Understand that, and massive mobilisation is possible. It's time to tell those who are delaying and backing and filling that we have withdrawn their permits, their rights to act against our common interests. Panzi! Vamos!<br />Siyaya!Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-390299289484825001.post-56466079774932894522011-12-09T01:59:00.000-08:002011-12-09T02:06:22.529-08:00Open letter to the Inside from the OutsideI received this today, the last day of COP17. I will attend tonight's vigil and hope against hope...<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYxgpJga8J43qFwhyLr3ArKxMPL7xkag3sY3_TQoErgiw2XhG-RUnEaFvX-RrqolE_vVdxYmWRN4z4YVxlA_uIAwcaDUtur1Z9OfO3-a-KQar4H11a26yEaczsUaZhU_eGryciVxWRxh9J/s1600/children.JPG"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 180px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYxgpJga8J43qFwhyLr3ArKxMPL7xkag3sY3_TQoErgiw2XhG-RUnEaFvX-RrqolE_vVdxYmWRN4z4YVxlA_uIAwcaDUtur1Z9OfO3-a-KQar4H11a26yEaczsUaZhU_eGryciVxWRxh9J/s320/children.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5684067211824435314" /></a><br />An Open Letter to the Delegates at COP17<br />(to be read on human microphone)<br />Can you hear me? /<br />Are you listening? /<br />These words / are not my own. / They are the voice / of the voiceless. / I speak to you, / not as a nation –/ but as the unheard majority of this planet – / the youth who are inheriting a system / we will not accept. / And I speak to you, / with the authority of every child / yet to be born. / The future belongs to them / not you.<br />We speak to you now / not as delegates of nations / but as people / as fellow humans – / so that your own hearts may speak truth. / For if you let a single word escape your lips / that does harm to your own conscience/ and to the rights / of all future generations –/ then you have no authority,/ for you know no justice./ And may the weight of the floods, / of the droughts,/ of the storms / and of the deaths –/ be upon your shoulders, / and upon your conscience/ from this day forth / For you held back the tides of change.<br />For 16 years / you have not heard us -/ so we are no longer asking. / The future of the 99% / will not be written by your documents,/ but by our actions. / You cannot stop an idea whose time has come / you cannot stop an idea whose time has come. / So speak your heart / for there is no choice now / but change.Mandi Smallhornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08201886764402692482noreply@blogger.com0