What’s in your bathroom cleaners? This lady is in for a surprise…

Funny though this clip is, the message is serious. We need to choose our bathroom cleaners wisely so we aren’t hanging out in nasty chemicals just when we’re trying to get clean.

I use Earth Choice cleaners throughout my house. I know some people make their own cleaners, or just use some bi-carb and vinegar, but honestly, I don’t have the time. I need something I can grab and spray. Earth Choice cleaners are made without nasty chemicals and are packaged in small containers using a minimum of plastic. The plastic used is recycled and recyclable. The cleaners are concentrated so you don’t need to use as much, thus minimising waste and the need to buy more bottles. There are all kinds of cleaners, for all parts of your house.

No nasty suds-men in my bathroom!!

Shipwrecks on coral reefs may increase invasion of unwanted species, according to a recent U.S. Geological Survey study. These unwanted species can completely overtake the reef and eliminate all the native coral, dramatically decreasing the diversity of marine organisms on the reef.

This study documents for the first time that a rapid change in the dominant biota on a coral reef is unambiguously associated with man-made structures. The findings of the study suggest that removal of these structures sooner rather than later is key to keeping reefs healthy.

Overgrowth of coral reefs by other species, such as algae, are usually attributed to environmental degradation, but bleaching, disease, damage by typhoons, overfishing, coastal development, pollution, and tourism can cause problems as well. The study was conducted at Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge in the central Pacific, a relatively remote, comparatively pristine area where little human activity has occurred since WWII. In 1991, a 100-foot vessel shipwrecked on the a toll. Scientists first surveyed the area in 2004 and found a species called Rhodactis Howesii —an organism related to sea anemones and corals—in low abundance around the wreck.

In subsequent years, however, populations of this organism increased exponentially. Scientists documented extremely high densities of R. Howesii that progressively decreased with distance from the ship, whereas R. Howesii were rare to absent in other parts of the atoll.

They also confirmed high densities of R. Howesii around several buoys. Whether this phenomenon occurs on other coral atolls is unknown; however, in the case of Palmyra, the R. Howesii infestation is beginning to reach catastrophic proportions, according to Dr. Thierry Work, the lead author of the study and a scientist at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center, Honolulu Field Station. Within a few years, R. Howesii spread to where it now occupies nearly 1 square mile. “Why this phenomenon is occurring remains a mystery,” said Work.

One possibility, he said, is that iron leaching from the ship and mooring buoy chains, accompanied with other environmental factors particular to Palmyra atoll, are somehow promoting the growth of Rhodactis. “Given the ability of Rhodactis sp. to rapidly reproduce and completely smother reefs, managers are now facing the possibility that even with removal of the ship, sheer reproductive capacity of R. Howesii may continue to fuel its spread along the western reef shelf of Palmyra,” Work said.Understanding what constitutes a healthy underwater ecosystem, as well as what does not, is crucial to preventing further losses in species and habitat. 

This research illustrates a little-known problem that, unlike global warming and pollution, could be prevented by removing man-made debris such as shipwrecks from coral reefs before organisms like Rhodactis Howesii can overtake healthy coral reefs.

Reading Response #11-Earth 911
Looking for a place to recycle almost anything? The website Earth 911 breaks down products and product packaging into recyclable units. Entering a physical address and a zip code provides the reader with detailed information on recycling facilities available near your residence.
Materials are broken down into distinct categories for easy reference. How to reuse specific products is explained in detail. The website is loaded with many practical ideas about how individuals can reduce their carbon footprint in everyday ways. An awareness of products that can be recycled when that product is purchased gives the reader valuable information about the actual life of that purchase. Modern day consumers are living in the disposable age. Landfills are abundant with products that could have been recycled and reused, some at considerable savings for the consumer.
In many cases people are not aware of the consequences of discards. This website emphasizes the direct impact recycling has on the environment. A change in attitude, in that new is not necessarily better, is mandatory if we are to lessen our negative environmental impact. This website can direct individuals to behaviors that will affect the earth in a positive way. The limited raw materials our society tosses as trash everyday need to be recycled whenever possible. This site offers practical information that will directly result in positive actions that can be shared with other consumers, and those consumers’ children.
Particularly during this consumer driven holiday season we need to step back from the cash register and reflect on the impact that purchase will have on the environment. The reader is encouraged to reuse gift wrapping and purchase items that are environmentally sound and will last beyond the new year. The Earth 911 website is a practical guide to recycling and dealing with items not generally thought to be recyclable. This website was easy to navigate and has links to many helpful, related sites. It encourages the reader to take an active role and helps them to make that New Year’s resolution of lessening their carbon footprint a reality.

The device consists uses mirrors(21) that are in an order in a parabola on a lightweight aluminum frame,which focuses the light on a small solar cell.
The founder, Roger Angel says the device uses about $200.00 worth of glass and could be mass produced for about $1,500. Mr. Angel says the device would produce energy for a $1.00 a watt,making it as cheap as coal -burning electrical plants.
Looks like we are getting some great alternative energy ideas as the time is on us to cut back our fossil fuel usage and dependency on foreign oil. The need for cleaner ways of getting energy is greater now than ever to save our planet.
Roger Angel is the University of Arizona’s Stewards Observatory Mirror Lab’s founder and director.
Oscars Products,LLC
The information from this post comes from Mr. Roger Angel at The University of Arizona and the Arizona Daily Star

Dans le cadre de la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique et la pollution, on entend beaucoup parler de réduction des gaz à effets de serre, d’économie d’énergie, d’énergie propre, de taxe carbone. Mais il y a un sujet peu évoqué : l’augmentation de la population mondiale. Et pourtant… Comme le dit le dernier rapport de l’UNFPA (Fonds des Nations-Unies pour la population) « les gaz à effet de serre ne s’accumuleraient pas de manière si dangereuse si le nombre des habitants de la planète n’augmentait pas si rapidement ».

Réduire d’un coté la pollution ne suffira pas si dans le même temps la population mondiale continue à augmenter de manière exponentielle. Et cela concerne aussi la raréfaction des ressources naturelles, la sur-pêche, la déforestation ou l’épuisement des sols… Déjà les terres commencent à manquer et de grands pays comme la Chine, l’Inde ou l’Arabie Saoudite louent des terres en Afrique pour nourrir leur propre population. Au point que certains parlent de néo-colonisation : « Avec le phénomène de la location des terres, il n’y a que les acteurs qui changent, ce n’est plus les Européens qui vont coloniser les terres d’Afrique, mais ce sont les pays asiatiques qui mènent le jeu cette fois-ci en Afrique. »

La population est au cœur de tous ces sujets, pourquoi n’en parle-t-on jamais ? Serait-ce démodé ou tabou ?

Il y a aujourd’hui 6,8 milliards d’humains, soit environ trois fois plus qu’en 1950 (1).  Les projections varient entre 8 Mds et 11Mds d’habitants en 2050 (2), selon le niveau de la fécondité.
Certains pays ont depuis longtemps fait leur transition démographique et ont retrouvé un équilibre avec un taux d’accroissement naturel faible (inférieur à 10 p. mille soit 1 % par an) ; c’est le cas des pays d’Europe et d’Amérique du Nord, de l’Australie, du Japon, de l’Argentine, de l’Uruguay… D’autres ont encore un taux d’accroissement naturel (TAN) fort (supérieur à 20 p. mille soit 2 % par an) ; c’est le cas des pays d’Afrique à l’exception de l’Afrique du Sud.
La situation des pays émergents comme la Chine ou l’Inde est un peu particulière : leur TAN est intermédiaire (14 p. mille en Inde) ou faible (6 p. mille en Chine) mais il porte sur un “stock” de population important, d’où une augmentation de population en volume encore élevée. Ces deux pays comptent aujourd’hui à eux deux 2,5 Mds d’habitants, l’Asie 4 Mds et l’Afrique un Md. C’est dans ces régions du monde que la question démographique va  donc se jouer, via la fécondité.

Dans son rapport Les femmes, la population et le climat (3) l’UNFPA propose de mettre la population, et en son sein les femmes (si je puis dire…), au coeur du débat sur les changements climatiques. Pourquoi les femmes ?
Parce que le meilleur moyen de diminuer la fécondité est de développer l’éducation des filles, notamment au niveau secondaire, comme le signale un ancien rapport pour les Nations-Unis (4). Les femmes mieux éduquées ont un meilleur accès à la santé, une meilleure insertion économique, un sentiment d’autonomie plus grand, un mariage plus tardif… et au final moins d’enfants. L’UNFPA propose aussi de relancer les politiques de planning familial en les modernisant :

Le contrôle de la population, au sens où un gouvernement promulguerait des ordonnances et des cibles concernant les niveaux de fécondité, n’a pas de place dans la définition contemporaine des politiques basées sur les droits. Ce qui est conforme à l’éthique — et à longue échéance bien plus efficace que les contrôles gouvernementaux —, ce sont des politiques qui permettent aux femmes et à leurs partenaires de décider par eux-mêmes s’ils veulent avoir des enfants et à quel moment, ainsi que des mesures qui promeuvent l’égalité entre les sexes dans tous les domaines de la vie économique et sociale.
La recherche démographique a démontré depuis des décennies que, chaque fois que les femmes et leurs partenaires peuvent mettre à profit des services de planification familiale centrés sur le client, le taux de fécondité tombe. Surtout quand ils se combinent avec l’offre d’une éducation aux filles et de perspectives économiques aux femmes, les services et produits de planification familiale réussissent tout particulièrement à retarder l’âge de la première grossesse et à diminuer le nombre d’enfants par famille. (3)

A l’occasion du sommet de Copenhague, le Danemark qui est en pointe sur les questions écologiques, souhaite justement inclure la question démographique au sein du débat sut le climat. Bonne idée. D’autant que les populations en forte croissance démographique sont les plus menacées par les changements climatiques :

En décembre 2008, le Forum asiatique des parlementaires pour la population et le développement a déclaré: “Il y a de forts liens et une corrélation marquée entre la croissance démographique et les émissions de gaz à effet de serre qui sont à l’origine des changements climatiques, et … les communautés connaissant une forte croissance démographique sont aussi les plus exposées aux effets négatifs des changements climatiques, comme la pénurie d’eau, les mauvaises récoltes, la hausse du niveau des mers et la propagation des maladies infectieuses.”(3)

A suivre donc.

Sources :
(1) Site de l’INED, où l’on peut naviguer depuis le continent jusqu’au pays pour la population, l’accroissement naturel ou la fécondité, mais aussi pour les pyramides des âges.
(2) Site de l’UNPP, où l’on peut voir les différentes projections à l’échelle du monde, d’un continent ou d’un pays.
(3) Face à un monde qui change : les femmes la population et le climat. UNFPA, état de la population mondiale, 2009.
(4) L’éducation est-elle le meilleur moyen de contraception ? Population Reference Bureau, 2000.

On croit encore que l’écologie c’est pas glamour. Limite que ça sert à rien tiens. En parlant d’une femme écolo, on pense plus souvent aux femmes mal épilées, mal fagotées qu’aux enjeux de la nation, qu’à la sauvegarde de la planète.

Personnellement ce matin, rassasiée pomponnée j’ai eu une révélation. La lumière m’a touchée. J’ai connecté les 3 neurones qui me restaient en cette fin de semaine pour me lancer dans une étude sexo-énergétique indispensable. En effet d’après des études super très sérieuses,  les français consommeraient en moyenne 13 piles par an pour un total d’un milliard de piles. Ah ah ! Que nenni que miche. Je vous vois messieurs les truands des sondages, on nous manipule, on nous truande… La preuve.

Sachant qu’une femme use en moyenne 4 pilles AAA dans ses toys par mois. C’est une moyenne… pour des femmes exigeantes, parce qu’entre nous, y’a pas pire qu’un toy qui vibre mou. Quoi ? Un mec qui bande mou ? Vous avez raison c’est pire. C’est même inacceptable. Dans ce cas ladies, hurlez juste NEXT et retour à vos piles.

Bref, sachant également qu’en France nous sommes un peu plus de 32 millions de femmes de plus de 15 ans. Sachant que si je prends en comptes les 7.5 millions de gays qui eux/elles savent jouer. Je pose 3 je retiens 1 . Bonant-malant ça nous donne 1,725 milliards de piles englouties sous des soupirs  et des cris chaque année. Pour un peu ça ferait rêver. Alors ? Hein ? On nous ment, je vous le disais !

Et puis au-delà des stats bidouillées, vous allez me dire qu’on avait qu’à prendre des piles rechargeables plus économiques, plus écologiques. Admettons. Il est vrai que les piles rechargeables auraient donc jusqu’à 32 fois moins d’impact sur l’environnement que les piles jetables. Admettons bis. N’empêche. Vous avez surement déjà du en mettre dans votre vieux walkman cassette… et vous retenir de vous jeter par la fenêtre en écoutant le dernier Madonna sonner comme un slow d’Amanda Lear. Alors l’écologie je veux bien. Mais jusqu’à preuve du contraire, y’a que le lapin de Duracel qui tortille des fesses jusqu’à ce que Madame soit satisfaite.

Mais c’est pas le pire. Imaginez que chaque pile pèse 23 grammes, nous croulons sous le poids mesdames de 39 000 tonnes de batteries chaque année. Un petit conseil, pensez à respirer au prochain orgasme surtout, au risque de vous étouffer. Tenez c’est à surveiller dans les faits divers : voir si l’écrasement est la première cause de mortalité chez la femme…

Mais c’est encore pas le pire (toujours pas). Restez concentrés mes chéris, on reprend les calculs. Le temps de remonter mes lunettes, d’essuyer un peu la buée et je repars au tableau. En admettant que le prix moyen d’un toy soit de 15€, que chaque femme en possède un (c’est encore une moyenne …), que le prix de 4 piles soit de 5€50 (qu’on ne vienne pas me dire que c’est pas documenté ça…). On salive sur la calculette et ça nous donne un joyeux 2.9 milliards d’euros. Si c’est pas de l’orgasme solitaire plaqué or ça !

Alors avec tout ça, et à l’aube du sommet de Copenhague, je dis qu’il est temps de prendre les choses en main. Il est temps d’agir, faisons fi de la fatalité, de la passivité… Soyons citoyennes mesdames, ayons le geste eco-responsable !
Baisons.

Greenpeace

 Sharon, a radio reporter and Vanessa, the Greenpeace education officer.

 S          Vanessa, could you tell us more about Greenpeace ?

V         It was started in 1971 in Vancouver by a handful of people who were very concerned about the damage being done to the environment.

S          Why does Greenpeace use peaceful direct action ?

V         Well, an awful lot of people are very ignorant about the destruction of our environment. We are trying to alert the public’s attention by taking peaceful direct action.

S          for instance ?

V         If we want to make sure the public understands how and why whales are being killed, we position a Zodiac full of human beings between the whaling ship and the whale. So that if the harponist tries tries to kill the whale, he has to fire over the heads of the people.

S          do you film the action ?

V         of course! We film the whale being slaughtered and Greenpeace trying to peacefully protect it. And we show the film all over the world so that the public becomes aware of what’s going on.

S.         where does the money come from to do all this ?

V         well, it comes from the public at large through donations, wills, fund-raising events, and the selling of Greenpeace merchandise. We have no official backing from anywhere, so if the public doesn’t give us support and money, we can’t carry on.

S          what are the main campaigns right now ?

V         In England we are campaigning against the dumping of nuclear waste in the sea. In Norway, we fight against the killing of baby seals for fur. In Germany we are also campaigning against acid rain.

S          and how about the future ? will Greenpeace continue in the same way ?

V         well, it’s hard to say how things will change. But certainly for the immediate future we’ll pursue peaceful direct action as a means of exposing what’s going on to the public. We do a tremendous amount of scientific research to back up our claims. We’ll remain relatively small in staff. But we are hoping to improve membership worldwide. So the future looks pretty well the same although campaigns will probably change as situations change.

S          Well, I hope you will succeed in your actions ! Thank you very much for telling us about Greenpeace, Vanessa.

V         Thank you.

 Questions :

• What is Greenpeace ?
• What is a direct action ?
• What are the past actions ? the future actions ?
• What could be further actions ? could you think of some more actions ?

  – suggestion de Corrigé :

 1)      Text :

 The text talks about a green organisation which tries to preserve the earth and our environment on a world basis. Its name is Greenpeace. We can read about 2 women Sharon a radio reporter interviewing Vanessa a Greenpeace education officer.

  Greenpeace was founded in Canada in 1971. A lot of people do not realise that our environment is endangered so Greenpeace tries to stop the killing of whales by placing Greenpeace members in a boat between the whaling ship and the whale, their action is peaceful but sometimes risky.

 Their funds come from the public mainly, and the raising of funds they organise.

 Norway kills baby seals and Greenpeace acts against what they call a slaughter, some other countries also have problems with Greenpeace as their actions are spread worldwhile.

 Vanessa thinks that the direct action will continue on the same line for the future as there is a lot to do. Greenpeace has a rather small staff but they do a tremendous amound of scientific research.

 She thinks there will be more members all over the world as they are campaigning for it.

2)       Your Personal part :

Talk about your own experience as far as Greenpeace is concerned, what you know, examples of some of their actions you’ve heard about.

 Talk about your action concerning recycling, and around you. As a teacher what can you do ?

Explain how you could help children realise how important it is for the future.   

Ok, so the global warming hoax is now exposed and the proposed “carbon tax” on every breathing inhabitant of planet Earth increasingly discredited.

_
So what’s going to happen to the thousands of jobs promised or created through the false “climate change” meme? To the industries that have sprung up on the back of evidently perverted climate research?

Currently, around £1,000 per company is spent by small business owners taking measures believing they will improve their environmental impact, according to Abbey and Alliance & Leicester Business Banking.

Their research finds that a quarter (26%) of small businesses are giving a higher priority to environmental considerations this year in spite of current economic pressures, contrasting with 16% of small businesses who have downgraded environmental issues this year in order to keep their firms afloat, with nearly half of them blaming the cost.

Now, if energy-saving measures save costs in the long term for businesses and households, that’s obviously a good thing. And just because the “global warming” hoax is now exposed, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about pollution (and CO2 is NOT a pollutant) pumped into the air, water and landfill sites.

But we do need to put more thought into how we invest in energy efficiency and conservation – rather than blindly line the pockets of dubious individuals who tour the globe with pseudo-religious mantras to tax us for just breathing so the businesses they’ve set up will reap ill-gotten rewards.

Any thoughts?

Earlier this summer, the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma won a $10.5 million settlement in its case against Continental Carbon for pollution that threatened the environment and the health of people on tribal lands. As Native American property owner Amos Hinton said of Continental’s Taiwanese-based parent company, “Pollution being placed on our ancestors’ graves and our homes for the sake of profit by foreign corporations … is completely unacceptable and it had to be stopped.”

Ponca Chiefs White Eagle, Standing Buffalo Bull, Standing Bear

Hinton is a descendent of Ponca Chief Standing Buffalo, a contemporary of Chief Standing Bear, who is the subject of a recent book, “I Am a Man”: Chief Standing Bear’s Journey for Justice. The Oklahoma Ponca are descendents of the Ponca tribe that originated 600 miles north in Nebraska. In the late 1870’s, the federal government forced the tribe out of the homeland and into the then Indian Territories of Oklahoma. But Chief Standing Bear led a band on foot back to their homeland, where they were arrested by the military and imprisoned at Fort Omaha. Local lawyers sympathetic to the Chief came forward to fight another forced exile, and argued against the government’s contention that the Native Americans had no right to a writ of habeas corpus, on the grounds that Indians were not citizens.

In a historic first, Judge Elmer S. Dundy sided in favor of the Chief, ruling that “an Indian is a person within the meaning of the laws of the United States” and that the band could not be forcibly moved or confined to a reservation without their consent. The small band of Nebraska Ponca were ultimately awarded back a small slice of their homeland, where they remain to this day, apart from their Oklahoma kin.

Reflecting on the story of Chief Standing Bear, author Joe Sarita noted the parallels with issues around military tribunals today.

Undoubtedly, Standing Bear would have been considered an enemy combatant of his time….Yet 130 years later, scores of [what until recently were known as] “enemy combatants” remain locked up in Guantánamo, cut off from the oldest liberty in the Constitution, unable to have a court decide their guilt or innocence. And this is not about their guilt or innocence. What has often separated this country from others is its adherence to the belief of  “equality before the law.” So how could this have been a guiding principle in 1879 but not in 2009?

City lights, orange glow
Moon hiding behind her shroud
Carbon dioxide

Global Warming

As children, most of us had heard the Chicken Little story, and remember the one repeating phrase “the sky is falling”.  This is not all that far fetched, since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have contributed to, what is referred to as, the greenhouse effect. Technically, the sky is not falling, but what is happening with our atmosphere is just as bad. The emissions of greenhouse gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, have increased greatly due to the increase in human activity. The future projections of global warming and the effects on biological life have become of great concern (Khoiyangbam).  Although the advancements of industrialization and technology have been beneficial, it has come with a price, global warming.  The economic consequences are because of the burning of fossil fuels, and the clearing of land.

First off, to understand why global warming is considered a bad thing, we must know what it is exactly.  To sum up global warming, it is the average increase in the Earths temperature (Environmental Protection Agency).  In the earths atmosphere, as most of us know, there are gases such as:  water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and methane.  Now, without these gases the world would freeze, because they provide somewhat of a blanket around the earth.  When the sun comes through our atmosphere it reflects off the ocean and ice, such as glaciers, and without these gases holding in this warmth from the sun, it would be sent right back out into space.  Much like a green house, heat form the sun comes through the glass (gases) and the warmth gets trapped inside, which is why it is called the greenhouse effect.  The problem that we are encountering is that the human civilization is producing too much of these gases into the atmosphere, and therefore we are hoarding too much heat.

Which, in turn, is having devastating and deadly effects on the earth.  There will be an increase in the spread of diseases, such as malaria carrying mosquitoes.  With the polar ice caps melting, ocean levels will continue to rise, which will lead to flooding and less land mass.  Also, with ocean level on the rise salt water can mix with fresh water, therefore less fresh water will be available.  We can expect more storms and hurricanes, and more them to be stronger.  Ecosystems will also change, due to the change in climates species will have to migrate north (where it is cooler), those that cannot make this change, could become extinct (National Geographic).  These are just some of the effects that global warming can have on the world, and some of them are in the process right now.

The burning of fossil fuels is a big contributor to global warming.  When people think of burning fossil fuel, they usually only think about the methods of transportation that they use.  This is obviously not the only way fossil fuel is burned; it is also being burned in factories, and in electric power plants.  Not only are we using fossil fuels to get us from point A to point B, but also to produce the things we need in order to live a comfortable lifestyle.  “The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space” (Mastrandrea et al. 2005).

When using any method of transportation, whether it is driving the family car to work, flying home to see relatives, or that big diesel bobcat plowing the snow off the roads, we are emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Which is “the most abundant human-made greenhouse gas. Thus, oil-based fuels are a prime player in climate change” (Schafer et al.).  There are alternatives to using fossil fuel to power our transportation, such as hydrogen and electric powered cars.  There is even Biofuel that can be used in place of gas, but since it is more expensive no one wants to buy it.

The amount of greenhouse gases that factories and power plants release into the atmosphere is an overwhelming amount.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), power plants and other industrial plants produce just over half of the nation’s greenhouse gases (as cited by Watson).  Taking a step back and looking at this, one would wonder why aren’t there laws or regulations of how much of these emissions that the power plants and factories can release into the atmosphere?  In March of 2009 the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule that would require a broad range of industries to tally and report their greenhouse gas emissions (as cited by Galbraith).  Even though it is just a proposal, it is a step in the right direction, and very much-needed step at that.

The second biggest impact that contributes to global warming due to human activity is that clearing of land, or deforestation.  Not only are we adding to these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but we are also taking away the very thing that can help decrease carbon dioxide, trees.  “Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation” (Mastrandrea et al. 2005).  A couple of reasons why we destroy forests and other plant life are to raise livestock and to grow crops.  As if destroying the land was not enough, animal agriculture itself is also a contributor to global warming.

When raising livestock in the mass quantities that we are today, we are emitting three powerhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.  These gases are being released from the digestive systems of these animals, as well as their manure.  Also, animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of emitting methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere (Freston 2007; Meat).  “The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations found that the animal agriculture sector emits 18%, or nearly one-fifth, of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, more than the transportation sector” (as cited by Koneswaran). To fully comprehend how much more of a contributor raising livestock for food is compared to driving a car, “eating 1 lb. of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gases as driving an SUV 40 miles” (Meat).  Crazy, we are actually contributing to global warming just by eating!  Not only that, but the fact that it is more devastating than driving a car, where the emissions can actually be seen coming from the exhaust.  This can be seen as a hidden contributor to global warming, because people (including myself) don’t think about these kind of details.

All across the world rain forests are being chopped down and the land is being bulldozed to provide an area to grow crops.  Not only are these crops being produced to feed us, but to also feed this vast amount of livestock that is being raised (Meat).  Tearing down rain forests, which help to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in order to obtain these massive crops is only adding to the effect of global warming.  It would be more beneficial to the environment in more ways than just reducing the effects of global warming.  Having these crops take other tolls on the environment, such as the desertification of the soil (Meat).  Which means that nothing can grow there, not even the trees that were once there before they were torn down to provide land for the crop fields.

When looking at all of these factors individually, it may not seem as if it would be that big of a deal.  But, when they are combined, it is just that.  The toll that global warming is having on the Earth will one day lead to catastrophe.  We have already seen what it is capable of; Hurricane Katrina had no mercy when it hit Louisiana in 2005.  Us Alaskans have also seen results from global warming, for example, this past summer we had nearly no rainfall at all in the Fairbanks area until the end of August.  If alternative solutions are not provided here in the near future, we may not be able to reverse the effects that global warming has in store for our planet.  The abuse that our atmosphere is enduring from the fossil fuels that are being burned through transportation, our factories, and our power plants cannot last forever. On top of that, the vast amounts of greenhouse gases that are produced from raising livestock are only digging us a deeper hole.  Not only is our civilization contributing to global warming through these activities, but we are also destroying the forests that help to decrease the amounts of these gases in the atmosphere.  If we are to continue down the path we are on, it might not be felt by this generation or the next, but somewhere down the road the human race is going to be in a world of hurt when our choices come back to bite us.

References

Mastrandrea, Michael D., and Stephen H. Schneider. (2005). Global warming. Retrieved November 25, 2009, From NASA website: http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Freston, Kathy. (2007, January 18). Vegetarian is the New Prius. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from The Huffington Post website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html

Meat and the Environment. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from GoVeg.com website: http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp

Schafer, A., Jacoby, H., Heywood, J., & Waitz, I. (November 2009). American Scientist. The Other Climate Threat: Transportation, Volume 97. http://proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=44768586&site=ehost-live

Khoiyangbam, R. (May 2008). Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization &Environmental Effects. Greenhouse Gases Emission from Energy Production in Conventional Biogas Plants in India, Volume 30. Doi: 10.1080/15567030601082118

Koneswaran, G., & Nierenberg, D. (May 2008). Environmental Health Perspectives. Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming:  Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change, Volume 116. http://proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32712648&site=ehost-live

Watson, T. (September 2009). USA Today. EPA aims to cut emissions at factories, power plants. http://proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=J0E199577479009&site=ehost-live

Galbraith, K. (March 2009). New York Times. E.P.A. Proposes Tracking Industry Emissions. http://proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36872418&site=ehost-live

National Geographic. (2007). Effects of Global Warming. Retrieved from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects.html

Environmental Protection Agency. (October 23, 2006). Climate Change: What it is. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/cc.html

Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10 times faster than previously thought, a study says. Researchers say carbon dioxide levels are having a marked effect on the health of shellfish such as mussels.

They sampled coastal waters off the north-west Pacific coast of the US every half-hour for eight years.

The results, published in the journal PNAS, suggest that earlier climate change models may have underestimated the rate of ocean acidification.

Professor Timothy Wootton from the department of ecology and evolution, University of Chicago, in Illinois, says such dramatic results were unexpected as it was thought that the huge ocean systems had the ability to absorb large quantities of CO2.

The findings showed that CO2 had lowered the water pH over time, demonstrating a year-on-year increase in acidity.

The research involved taking daily measurements of water pH levels, salinity and temperature, off the coast of Tatoosh island, a small outcrop lying in the Pacific Ocean, just off the north-western tip of Washington state, US.

As well as measuring physical factors, the health of marine life present in the coastal ecosystem was also tracked.

Professor Wootton says biological factors were missing from previous models of ocean climate systems – and that life in the ocean, or in this case on the ocean edge, can also affect seawater pH.

Every summer, Professor Wootton returned to the same sites on Tatoosh island’s windswept coasts, to look at the abundance and distribution of life at the water’s edge. He was especially interested in barnacles, algae and the dominant species, the Californian mussel.

The mussel has a calcium carbonate -based shell, which can be weakened or even dissolved by exposure to acid. Professor Wootton says the increase in acidity may be responsible for the decline in mussels noted in the study.

Other species quickly move into the space previously occupied by the mussels – though one of these species, the barnacle, also has calcified shells.

To explain this apparent anomaly, Professor Wootton says the decline of the dominant species allows a window where another species may thrive – though he expects this to be temporary as the interloper too will eventually be affected by the increasing acidity.

The researchers say they were surprised that the plants and animals in their study are so sensitive to CO2 changes. These organisms live in the harsh inter-tidal zones, they may be submerged under water, exposed to the sun, then lashed by waves and storms.

Professor Wootton says the most troubling finding is the speed of acidification, with the pH level dropping at a much greater rate than was previously thought.

“It’s going down 10 to 20 times faster than the previous models predicted,” he says.

The research team are now working together with chemical oceanographers to see how their coastal observations can be matched with large scale observations, to try to explain why the decline in pH levels seems to be happening so quickly.

“We actually know surprisingly little about how ocean acidity is changing over time, we need a broader network of measurements,” said Professor Wootton.

- from bbc

For years I have been trying to photograph the famous Leonids Meteor shower. Usually the weather forecast is cloudy and no opportunity presents itself.

This year, the weather forecast was clear and I headed up for a cold vigil at Nagarkot, along with some Nepali amateur astronomers and a few colleagues.

It was 3AM when the constellation of Leo appeared over the northern Himalayan horizon and as we got our cameras ready, a thick, dense freezing fog descended upon us and did not clear until 5AM, by which time, dawn was a-coming and there were few meteors to be seen.

However, I did get some nice shots of the brown haze pollution (a contributing cause of the demise of the great Himalayan glaciers along with climate change) and of course, the high Himalayan view which Nagarkot is famous for.

Until the fog came, I was impressed by Nagarkot’s dark sky and I would recommend this viewpoint for those visiting Nepal with an interest in astronomy (bit easier to lug your telescope up there than the high Himalayal!) and hope that the government may recognise it and create a dark sky park.

HD stock footage of the mountains and brown haze pollution can be seen on clipcanvas.com (using the key words Lightroom Productions) and photos on the database at http://pa.phtooshelter.com/c/lightroom/

My name is Peter Ndung’u, peter means rock I live in Kawangware, the name Kawangware means place of many bird that use to live there, and they liked the place simply because the place was full of smart tree such as sypras and many more.

As the time went by bird went on by flying to other places, birds were replaced by people where it remind to be remembered place of birds and that is the name came from.

People living in Kawangware life is very delicate for those who don’t have same thing or someone to turn to but for those who have it’s for their own good especially if you are not employed or self employment.

For many days I do various job in the streets such as caring good from one place to another, fetch water and wash car. My community is known for the hard working generation.

New generation it isn’t only known for hands working us also have football team it is the best team in the region.

We also have same of the girls who can take good care of children. The population is not high as it’s discovered in same places.

In our community notified that God hasn’t let us down simply because we have got same help from big company such as com21, Undugu Society of Kenya and visitors from other countries and we give thanks the highest GOD.

Mawassem Kheir

1- Parlez-nous de vous-même? Votre formation? Votre profession? Vos activités?

Je suis président d’une ONG Mawassem Khair (moissons de la bienfaisance) dont la seule mission est de faire découvrir et sauvegarder ce patrimoine de la biodiversité et la richesse de notre nature.

Membre de la communauté Libanaise du Sénégal, j’ai commencé mes actions en Afrique avant de me consacrer exclusivement au Moyen-Orient…. Là-bas, au côté de mon frère Haidar El Ali, je me suis engagé, dans le cadre de l’association Océanium, dans la défense des dauphins et des espèces protégées, puis dans l’effort de reboisement.
Au Liban ensuite, où je me suis rendu la première fois il y a cinq ans seulement,  accompagnant mon père  suite au décès de ma mère. Le Liban a été pour moi une révélation : j’y ai découvert une « Terre Sacrée », capitale de la biodiversité du Moyen-Orient, et je me suis, depuis lors, engagé dans la protection de son riche patrimoine écologique. Mon ONG, Mawassem Khair, Moisson de la Bienfaisance, en coopération avec la FINUL, a participé au désamorçage de plus de 4000 bombes au Liban du Sud, au reboisement de la région ainsi qu’à la lutte contre les incendies, et surtout aux efforts de sensibilisation et d’éducation de la population aux problèmes environnementaux.
Mon grand projet actuel est de renforcer mes initiatives de reboisement du Liban, d’assister les municipalités en matière de traitement des déchets et des eaux usées, et de créer une agence d’information dédiée au développement durable et aux questions d’éco-santé au Liban.
[Pour suivre les actions de Ibrahim El Ali, rendez-vous sur son site : http://fondation-elali.blogspot.com/]

2-Que pouvez-vous dire des fleuves au Liban?

Le Liban, contrairement à ses voisins, dispose d’abondantes ressources en eau. Ses fleuves sont à l’image des nombreux paradoxes de notre pays. Que ce soit notre eau, nos montagnes, nos plantes et fleurs, notre littoral, nos oiseaux migrateurs, ou la faune sauvage – affluence du trésor de la biodiversité du moyen orient et gâchis permanents causés par la cupidité -, l’écosystème libanais paye un lourd tribut à cause des solutions de facilité et du manque d’implication d’un gouvernement encore instable, davantage inquiet de son maintien et soucieux des questions de  sécurité, que de développement durable qui est pourtant parti intégrante de la sécurité humaine.

Le Liban est composé de plus de 2000 rivières et de 40 fleuves dont 17 pérennes que sont le Nahr Litani, l’Oronte, Nahr Awali, Nahr Ibrahim, Nahr Abu Ali, ainsi que 23 saisonniers.
Les principaux polluants sont de nature agricole, avec l’azotate et le phosphore, par les engrais et les différents pesticides de nature industrielle, les lacunes en matière d’évacuation d’eaux usées et enfin de déchets physiques de toute sorte. L’eau est la plus grande richesse des décennies à venir, protégeons-la pour en tirer les fruits demain.

3- Quelles sont les activités qui polluent (les causes de la pollution) ?

Quelle question ! Tout pollue au Liban. L’agriculture, comme je le disais tantôt, avec son surdosage en pesticides n’est certainement pas le dernier des facteurs. Savez-vous qu’en France, 70 produits sont acceptés comme pesticides alors qu’au Liban, nous en avons plus de 130 homologués, sans parler des produits de contrebande ! L’activité industrielle à proximité des villes a une grande part de responsabilité, en se débarrassant de ses surplus toxiques, de peintures, d’huile de vidanges etc. Les déchets domestiques, les déchets sanitaires, les rejets des déchets d’hôpitaux, l’évacuation des égouts dans les fleuves, en zone urbaine ou dans les campagnes constituent un fléau. Les fosses septiques dans nos maisons laissent s’infiltrer les déchets et matières fécales dans les nappes souterraines. Les diverses huiles de vidange des industries ou des voitures sont hautement cancérigènes faute d’installations prévues pour leur récupération. Enfin, soulignons notre mauvaise habitude de tout déverser dans les fleuves après nos pique-niques familiaux.

4- Y a-t-il des fleuves plus pollués que d’autres? Les fleuves les moins (ou les non) pollués?

Oui, Nahr Ghadir qui traverse le sud de Beyrouth pourrait battre le record du monde du fleuve le plus pollué, et le plus propre à mon sens serait le fleuve Wazani, car il y a très peu d’agriculture à proximité ; on y trouve même des poissons et une faune abondante.

Ce que l’on peut dire sur le sujet, c’est qu’il y a disparité du dosage de polluants sur les différents fleuves. Le Ministère de l’environnement a fait des études en 2006 et leur observation sur cinq captages indique que les fleuves de Damour, d’Awali, de Beyrouth et du Litani présenteraient un déficit en oxygène, entraînant un phénomène d’eutrophisation qui est principalement provoqué par une augmentation des niveaux de nitrate et de phosphate et par une influence négative sur la vie de l’eau. En effet, en raison de l’enrichissement, les plantes aquatiques, telles que les algues se développent de façon intensive. Par conséquent, l’eau absorbe moins de lumière et certaines bactéries aérobies deviennent plus actives. Ces bactéries abaissent les niveaux d’oxygène à un tel niveau que seules les bactéries anaérobiques peuvent être actives. Ceci rend la vie dans l’eau impossible pour les poissons et les autres organismes.

Les déchets qui peuvent être décomposées par des bactéries sont gourmands en oxygène.

Cependant la demande de nitrogène est importante dans les fleuves de Damour et d’Awali.

En outre, le fleuve d’Awali sollicite  du phosphore, au contraire des fleuves de Beyrouth et du Litani. Malheureusement, ce déséquilibre écosystémique des fleuves cause des épidémies.

5- On dit que la Méditerranée est la mer la plus polluée au monde. Quelle est la part du Liban dans ce désastre écologique?

Quiconque se baigne dans la mer Méditerranée a de fortes chances de tomber sur des ordures, et plus on remonte vers le nord, plus les concentrations sont fortes à cause du courant qui ramène tout de Tyr à Tripoli.

Il y a 33 unités de résidus par mètre carré d’eau, sans oublier les dommages occasionnés par les plastiques, confondus avec les méduses dont se nourrissent nos tortues, dauphins et les oiseaux migrateurs.

L’état du fleuve Ghadir qui traverse le sud de Beyrouth, notre montagne d’ordures de Saida, et celle de Ras al Ayn au dessus de la source d’eau qui alimente toute la ville de Tyr, résument à eux trois toute la problématique de l’environnement au Liban.

Tous ces déchets se jettent à volonté dans la mer. Une mer déjà largement polluée suite à la destruction des réservoirs d’hydrocarbures de la  centrale de Jiyeh, vomissant plus de 15.000  tonnes de mazout sur notre littoral. Outre nos vies et nos maisons, notre nature a subi de lourds dommages et ceux-ci perdurent à nos jours.

La reconstruction après la guerre s’est caractérisée par une surconsommation en eau et surtout en sable du littoral, véritable filtre empêchant toute la salinité et la pollution marine de remonter dans nos fleuves. Les produits chimiques des bombes  se retrouvent dans nos nappes phréatiques, et enfin, sont responsables en partie des feux de forêt.

La fragilité politique du Liban le transforme en dépotoir.

Le Liban est dans la confluence du trafic des tankers de pétroliers qui y déversent allègrement tout leur surplus. Chaque année, 400 000 tonnes d’hydrocarbures sont déversées de façon illicite dans la Méditerranée, jusqu’à 10 grammes d’hydrocarbures par litre.

Les sources de pollution les plus directes sont les fleuves et les systèmes qui drainent les eaux usées des zones urbaines pour les déverser en mer. Quand aurons-nous enfin nos stations d’épuration d’eaux usées ?

La mer méditerranée est la plus polluée du monde, son nettoyage doit constituer une priorité de l’Union Pour la Méditerranée (UPM).

Tout le monde a compris les interdépendances en matière d’écologie : un sac de plastique qui tombe à Saida peut se retrouver à Marseille.

6 Quelles sont les conséquences de cette pollution sur l’environnement et sur la santé du citoyen?

J’ai toujours été frappé par le taux élevé de cancer au Liban, alors que notre régime alimentaire proche du régime crétois, est le meilleur du monde. La pollution de l’eau au Liban en est certainement l’une des causes.

La pollution des fleuves est un véritable danger pour la santé, la proximité des habitations sur le fleuve traversant les villes fait que l’effusion des produits PCB ou encore polychlorobiphényles, classés comme polluants organiques persistants (POPS) et employés industriellement comme additifs dans les peintures, les encres et les huiles mécaniques, sont très peu biodégradables, et hyper cancérigènes.

Les bactéries, les virus, les protozoaires et les vers parasites qui se développent dans les égouts et les eaux usées non traitées et l’accès à une eau potable de mauvaise qualité (Pratiquement partout au Liban), entraînent toute sorte de maladies (diarrhée, dysenterie, gastroentérite, etc.). Outre le cancer, de nombreux patients sont atteints par l’hépatite A et la typhoïde. Ceci se vérifie plus au nord et au sud (régions recevant l’eau potable avec parcimonie). On boit encore dans ces régions de l’eau de pluie stockée dans des cuves en béton pendant toute l’année, sans aucune forme de traitement.

Enfin, les composés radioactifs hydrosolubles peuvent causer des cancers, des malformations chez les nouveau-nés et des modifications génétiques et sont donc des polluants de l’eau très dangereux. L’actualité nous parle de produits hautement radioactifs destinés à l’agriculture, contenant un cobalt-36 source de -60 capable de tuer une personne en quelques minutes. Ce produit devait être utilisé pour un projet de lutte contre les mouches qui détruisent les récoltes, en particulier les pommes. Je trouve vraiment cette information très inquiétante. Toutes les formes de pollution finissent dans l’eau puis affectent notre santé. Comment pouvons-nous raisonnablement penser que seuls les poissons des fleuves vont mourir et que cette pollution nous épargnera?

7- Quelle est la responsabilité du gouvernement dans cette lutte contre la pollution?

Je ne voudrais pas trop accabler de reproches le gouvernement  libanais qui d’une part se débat pour survivre dans un contexte politique interne et régional compliqué, et qui d’autre part n’ose pas prendre de mesures courageuses de crainte que cela ne contrevienne aux intérêts des paysans, déjà très affectés par la crise. Une telle option lui ferait perdre encore plus de crédit auprès des populations rurales.

Les rapports du CNRS  rattaché au Premier ministre sont formels et font le détail précis de toutes les formes de pollution dans notre agriculture et dans nos sources d’eau. Les mesures à prendre sont connues par nos scientifiques mais la stabilité sociale déjà ô combien fragile dans notre pays, ligote le gouvernement. Qui osera toucher aux subventions sur le tabac qu’on finit par brûler, ou imposer une agriculture biologique et travailler pour un Liban écologique ?

Quelle est la responsabilité du citoyen qui ne paie pas ses factures d’eau tout en augmentant son débit, qui déverse toutes ses poubelles dans nos fleuves ?combien de maires ont détourné des licences de forage des municipalités dans leur villa ? En matière d’environnement, la responsabilité incombe avant tout à nos curés et « sayyids », à nos municipalités, à nos instituteurs. Le travail doit être fait au niveau de la société civile pour parvenir à responsabiliser le citoyen, en menant des campagnes efficaces de sensibilisation et à condition de rétablir l’équilibre de  la distribution de l’eau dans les différentes régions et d’assurer une meilleure gestion des deniers publics. Le principal effort doit être consenti par l’Etat qui doit rester exemplaire pour que nos municipalités si pauvres en moyen financiers finissent par se mobiliser. (Il n’est pas interdit de rêver).

8- Parlez-nous de votre prochain (ou plutôt actuel?)  Projet?

Trois projets me tiennent à cœur.

Le premier est le nettoyage du Nahr Ghadir descendant le Chouf pour traverser les quartiers populaires du sud de Beyrouth avant de se jeter dans la mer. Ce fleuve est un « poison ambulant », et concentre toutes les formes de pollutions qui existent au Liban.

On y trouve des concentrations très élevées de métaux lourds, du nitrate, des bactéries, source de maladies pour les riverains.

Pour nettoyer ce fleuve efficacement, il faut impérativement sensibiliser du même coup les paysans qui fournissent le maraîchage de Beyrouth en utilisant des pesticides et des engrais à fortes doses,  les industriels du Chouf et de la région de l’aéroport, qui utilisent ce fleuve comme poubelle de leurs produits toxiques, et enfin la plus forte démographie de tout le Liban, qui vit dans ces quartiers et qui y jette soit ses détritus, soit ses eaux usées.

Mon deuxième projet  est un vaste programme de reboisement.

Mon troisième est de rajouter deux réserves ou parcs nationaux dans le programme du ministère de l’environnement. L’un serait la forêt de pins de Jezzine, le second cette magnifique forêt riche en biodiversité de wadi hjer partant de Zawtar à Majdal dans la région de Nabatiyé, et développer l’écotourisme.

photo: (inconnu)

.   For more information go to www.sierraclub.org/coal.

Via: GLOBE-Net (November 17, 2008)

Canada’s oil and gas extraction industry spent $2.8 billion to protect the environment in 2006, more than any other industry, says a new publication by Statistics Canada.

The industry’s expenditures accounted for nearly one-third of the $8.6 billion outlay by businesses operating in Canada for both operating expenses and capital investment in environmental protection. This amount represents all expenditures made in response to environmental regulations, conventions and voluntary agreements.

Industry spending on waste management and sewerage services and pollution abatement and control activities represented almost half of the overall total.

These results followed a long-standing trend in which the largest share of environmental protection expenditures was made to deal with pollutants after they were created.

Provincially, Alberta businesses invested the most in facilities and equipment to protect the environment, again surpassing Ontario, the largest spender up until 2002.

Alberta’s lead position in capital spending on environmental protection was due mainly to high expenditures by the oil and gas extraction industry.

Put in perspective, for every $100 invested by the oil and gas extraction industry, $4 was invested in environmental protection.

Capital investments by Canadian oil and gas producers, most of which operate in Alberta, totaled over $1.7 billion in 2006. This investment occurred in areas such as pollution abatement and control, waste management, pollution prevention, and reclamation and decommissioning.

The oil and gas extraction industry also reported the highest operating expenses ($1.1 billion). This amount went mainly for reclamation and decommissioning, waste management and sewerage services and pollution abatement and control processes.

About $20 out of every $100 invested by the petroleum and coal products industry was for environmental protection, as that industry continued to upgrade refineries to meet new sulphur regulations.

Combined, the oil and gas extraction and petroleum and coal products industries accounted for almost two-thirds of total capital investment for environmental protection.

The industry spent nearly two billion dollars in 2006 on technologies that improve energy efficiency or reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Compared with industry spending on environmental protection, this amount represents a broader set of expenditures. It reflects a motivation by industry to adopt energy-related environmental technologies that exceed responses to environmental regulations, conventions or voluntary agreements.

The oil and gas extraction industry led the way with expenditures of $495.4 million on alternative energy and energy reduction technologies. Most of this amount, $472.9 million, was directed at capital projects.

The electric power generation, transmission and distribution industry spent a similar amount. However, it directed less to capital projects ($155.4 million) and more to operating expenses ($337.8 million).

Industry spending was directed to technologies such as cogeneration, waste energy recovery, solar energy and energy management systems.

I was just thinking about all the talk about the environment: About greenhouse gas emissions produced by automobiles, industry, transportation vehicles, freighters… the list goes on and on… when suddenly I remembered the horrid images in the media from “The War on Terror” in Iraq. How many years ago was it? 2001 was the WTC catastrophe, the first bombs were dropped on Iraq by 2002, and by 2003 we were seeing images of Baghdad being carpet bombed. What’s more, miles and miles an miles of Iraqi oil wells were bombed. Do you remember the plumes of black smoke that burned for… how long? Months? A year? How much pollution was spewed into the atmosphere from that, and how come no one talks about it? Has the world forgotten about it? Was it not a climatic disaster? Is driving my car to and from work worse than the plumes of black, acrid smoke billowing into the sky from those burning oil fields?

It appears oil fields are still burning:

After reading the article in the link above, it’s even more evident to me that the issue will never be resolved. Greed and obfuscation will reign. All living things deserve clean air and water, but humans will ensure that won’t happen. Ever.

Oh, Fuddle Puddle. I just don’t get it.

Ingrid