As early as 1998, the dangers of genetically modified food (GMOs) have been recognized by numerous scientific studies. Yet, no mainstream media included stories warning of these studies. Even today, the general North American public remains ignorant of their daily food’s dangers due to the mainstream press’s continual disregard of the topic.

The media research group Project Censored brought this issue to light by admitting it in its 2007 database. Annually, the American media research organization Project Censored records the twenty-five most underreported stories of the year, in hopes of exposing significant (and ignored) stories to the public and informing them on key issues that would not otherwise be brought to their attention. Underreported stories submitted must be reliable and of major significance to the population.

This article tracks the coverage GM food’s dangers since its induction into Project Censored’s database, searching in American mainstream press, Canadian and foreign mainstream press.

In 1998,  Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s examination of  laboratory rats concluded that rats fed a diet of GM food became sickly, had malformed organs, and had abnormal blood composition, while the rats fed a non-GMO diet had no such problems (Lean, 2005). Consequently, questions were raised about the long term health risks of GM foods for humans. This study was covered in the British article “Revealed: ‘Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food’” by Geoffrey Lean.

In 2005, the Organic Consumers Association website also documented Pusztai’s report with the article “Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy”. This article, like Lean’s, tells of how authorities required Pusztai to sign a confidentiality agreement before examining the secret study. Lean further exposed the dangers of GM foods in his article “GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed”. The study, by Russian scientists, found GM-fed laboratory rats much more likely to give birth to offspring who died before they were three weeks old and were severely underweight.

Finally, Herve Kempf’s article “New Suspicions About GMOs” was featured in Le Monde and Truthout in 2006. Kempf summarized Australian researchers’ findings that mice fed GM peas suffered an allergic reaction. In the same article, Kempf also remarks on studies by an Italian team of researchers who fed GM soy to laboratory mice. The mice experienced misshapen liver cells, which returned to normal after the GM diet was terminated.

Since the induction into Project Censored’s 2007 database, American (and Canadian) mainstream coverage since 2007 on genetically modified foods has been substantial, but lacking in reporting the health concerns. For instance, in contrast to the independent studies Project Censored refers to, the recent New York times article puts a positive spin on the issue, reassuring consumers that  ”new guidelines should allow engineered animal foods to be introduced safely. Producers will have to show that the inserted genes do not harm the animal’s health and that any food from a genetically engineered animal is safe to eat” (“Coming to a Plate Near You”, 2008, para. 2).

Surprisingly, foreign mainstream coverage is not very different. Some European articles align with the American view. For example, The Observer’s Robin McKie denies all concrete evidence for the dangers of GMOs, and argues instead that their “potential to improve human health is considerable” (McKie, 2008, para.3). However, other European articles criticize GM foods. For example, the British “Observer” addresses the American viewpoint that “in America, where more than 90 per cent of all soya is now GM, people have been eating the stuff for years, with no adverse effects. ‘That … is only because nobody is looking at what the effects might be.’ In short, GM [is] a risk because nobody knows what it might be doing” (Rayner, 2008, para. 16).

In a search for articles referring to the specific studies, there was extensive press coverage in mainstream Australian and English newspapers. Some articles, such as Steve Dube’s, even covered Dr Pusztai’s research in detail (Dube, 2008). Some local Canadian newspapers also picked up on the stories. For example, a local daily from Duncan, BC tells of lab rats’ offspring dying (Riley, 2008). However, there was no mention of the specific studies in any mainstream American or Canadian press. Usually, when the mainstream press did mention GMO dangers, they cited “recent studies”, not mentioning the researchers or universities. It is safe to say that the public is more familiar with the idea of genetically modified foods, but there is no consensus of their dangers.

The most probable reason that the story was underreported was because it challenges the profitable business of large corporations. Project Censored (2007) explains that “the vast majority of toxicological studies are conducted by those companies producing and promoting consumption of GMOs”. Clearly, this has the potential to cause many problems, including the suppression of important findings. This could not be more true than in the case of Dr. Pusztai’s work. Monsanto, being such a wealthy corporation and a worldwide producer of GMOs, has the power to stop negative press. As previously noted, Pusztai was “forced by the German authorities to sign a ‘declaration of secrecy’” (Project Censored, 2007).

It should be noted that Europe has banned the import of GM foods and has strict labelling requirements (Project Censored, 2007). The American and Canadian public consume genetically modified food (such as the soy and corn tested on the lab rats) on a daily basis, and currently, there are no mandatory labelling regulations (Project Censored, 2007).  

Therefore, although the dangers of genetically modified foods may have been confirmed, they have yet to be confirmed by mainstream news. Although it is almost certain that further scientific studies will reveal dangers of genetically modified foods, it remains unclear whether these dangers will become known to the general public.

Reference List

Coming to a Plate Near You. (2008, October 4). New York Times, p. A18. Retrieved October 10, lexisnex2008 from LexisNexis database. 

Dube, S. (2008, August 17). Food Fight. Wales on Sunday, p.26. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database. 

GM Free Cymru. (2005, June 2). Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from Organic Consumers Association website: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm 

Kempf, H.  (2006, February 9). New Suspicions About GMOs. Le Monde and Truthout. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2005, May 22). Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2006, January 8). GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

McKie, R. (2008, October 5). Science and food: Scare stories have drowned out the good that GM could do. The Observer, p. 29. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Project Censored (2008). #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from Project Censored website: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/12.html

Rayner, J. (2008, October 5). Science and food: The war over GM is back. Is the truth any clearer? The Observer, p. 28. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Riley. J. (2008, July 4). How to avoid the genetically modified. Cowichan Valley Citizen, pg. 26 Retrieved October 10, 2008 from Canadian NewsStand database.

Photo credit: Matt Callow

They variously argue AGAINST carbon pricing based on a Kyoto Protocol-based Cap-and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of which the pro-coal Australian Government’s carbon pollution-increasing and misleadingly named Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is a spectacularly flawed, irresponsible, anti-social, anti-humanity, anti-environment, anti-Planet and disastrous example.

Thus the pro-coal Australian ETS involves a rigged auction involving only major polluters and then extraordinarily hands most of the receipts back to the major polluters. The proposed Australian ETS is estimated to mean an increase in Australian domestic and exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 80% on 2000 levels by 2050 (see my letter in the leading Australian newspaper The Age, 14 June, 2009).

Well, we hear plenty from ignorant and dishonest politicians about their pet Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Indeed such a scheme is a key part of the Obama Administration Waxman-Markey energy, climate and cap-and-trade Bill that has just passed the US House of Representatives and now faces the US Senate.

But what do top climate scientists and climate economists say? Below are some key comments made by experts who press for a direct, global Carbon Tax rather than failed, worse than ineffective, dishonest, risky and market manipulatable Carbon Trading (for detailed, extensive and updated documentation of such views see the website of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; adjunct professor, Columbia; University, New York, USA), February 2009:

“The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of driving our economy and our society to the clean world of the future is “Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend” … The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren.” [1].

Jonathan Leake (science and environment editor of the UK Sunday Times), March 2009:

“Britain’s faith in carbon trading as a way of reducing greenhouse gases could be dangerously misplaced, according to an independent academic working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Dr Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School … [has] a far wider conclusion: the current European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is deeply flawed and should be replaced – or at least augmented – with a green tax … For the ETS to work, the price has to be set at a level that makes it worthwhile for consumers to cut their energy use. According to Hope’s research, the minimum price needed is about £85 per tonne [A$173] , rising at roughly 2 to 3 per cent a year … Prices now stand at roughly £9.50 [A$19] per tonne of CO2 – less than 12 per cent of what Hope’s calculations show is needed.… He believes a market-based trading system such as the ETS is very unlikely to generate consistent high prices, and this instability could undermine the whole point of the scheme”. [2].

Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, USA), March 2009:

“The international community is making huge wager on the Kyoto model. The wager is that the cap-and-trade structure contained in the model will do the job of slowing global warming. The new United States Administration advocated that the U.S. adopt this system as its contribution top solving the global problem, and the primary legislation in the U.S. Congress is firmly a cap-and-trade proposal. But, as I have suggested above, the cap-and-trade approach is a poor choice of mechanism… You need only to look today at the wreckage of the current financial system to see the latest example of the effects of failed regulatory and risk-management design. So, if the Kyoto model turns out to be another failed model, it has lots of company. But it would be better to recognize and change it now, rather than in one or two more decades of ineffective and inefficient efforts to slow emissions. The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions.” [3].

Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK), March 2009:

“His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face.” [4].

Professor Daniel M. Kammen, (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley), March 2009:

“Evolving the filed of climate solutions science: the economics of clean and sustainable energy must be supported for individuals and companies to achieve a shared vision; a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential (but alone it is not sufficient); innovative financing is needed to advantage clean energy; innovation and implementation is needed in the North and South; scientific, and policy innovations open the door for quantified cases of clean development that, in turn, can reset the political landscape in favour of a low carbon future.” [5].

Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia), 2009:

“1. A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy. 2. With a cap and trade approach, the target is everything as both the emissions cap and emissions floor are locked in. No one can do better than the cap, and so the cap must be a science based all consuming sustainable target pathway that won’t lock in failure. As we don’t yet have the widespread political and economic preparedness to commit to an all consuming sustainable target pathway (either nationally or internationally), the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax with complementary mechanisms that would transform the economy more effectively than the [Australian] proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).” [6].

Larry Lohmann (climate economist, The Corner House, London, UK); summary of book “Carbon Trading”, by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006 [implicit in the GHG pollution cessation argument is taxing GHG pollution out of existence]:

“The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions — primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems — and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading — the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, allowing them to make money from business as usual. Second, companies buy additional pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to emit less greenhouse gas than they would have without the investment. Most of the carbon credits being sold to industrialized countries come from polluting projects, such as schemes that burn methane from coal mines or waste dumps, which do little to wean the world off fossil fuels.” [7].

Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration), January 2009:

“A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme, based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members…the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract speculation and new financial derivatives, putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon, creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes.” [8].

More from Dr Robert J. Shapiro, March 2009:

“The proper approach here is a straightforward one. First, enact a carbon-based tax to move people and firms to prefer and choose less-carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Second, as we change the relative prices of different forms of energy based on their effects on the climate, protect people’s incomes and the overall economy by returning all or virtually all of the revenues through payroll tax cuts or lump-sum payments to households. Third, use the certainty of a substantial tax on carbon, along with additional subsidies, to promote the development of new climate-friendly fuels and technologies that can capture a new and fast-growing global market. I recently co-authored a study that used the same modeling system as the Department of Energy to estimate the environmental and economic consequences of applying this specific approach. We found that we can effectively address climate change without harming our economy … And after the carnage of Wall Street’s recent rounds of malfeasance, it is painfully clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department simply lack the ability (and the resources) to effectively police complex, fast-moving markets involving many, many thousands or millions of trades per day. Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up.” [9].

Pro-coal US and pro-coal Australia are world leading greenhouse has (GHG) polluters. Pro-coal, climate criminal Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter. Thus Australia’s domestic and exported “annual per capita GHG pollution” is 54 tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year – 2 times that of the US, 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh.

If the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference opts, like the climate criminal nations of the US and Australia, for a Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), then the World is facing disastrous inaction over man-made global warming and the real prospect of worsening, First World-imposed climate genocide. Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive global warming this century, this constituting a prospective climate genocide that will kill 10 billion non-Europeans including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (for detailed documentation see here).

Key References

[1]. Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009: http://cleanenergy-project.de/…/carbon-tax-100-dividend-vs-tax-trade/ ; http://www.columbia.edu/…/WaysAndMeans.pdf.

[2]. Tricia Holly Davis & Jonathan Leake, New Statesman, 26 March 2009: http://newstatesman.com/…/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2.

[3]. Professor William Nordhaus, “Economic issues in designing a global agreement on global warming”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[4]. Oliver Tickel, “Replace Kyoto Protocol with global carbon tax, says Yale economist”, Guardian, 12 March 2009.

[5]. Professor Daniel M. Kammen, “From climate science to solutions: shared agendas in the North and South”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[6]. Professor Barry Brook, “CPRS versus carbon tax: Senate Inquiry”, 30 March 2009.

[7]. Larry Lohmann, summary of book “Carbon Trading. A critical conversation on climate change, privatisation and power” by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006, published by Dag Hammarskold Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, 2006.

[8]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “The real choice between Cap-and Trade and Carbon-based taxes”, Roll Call, 15 January 2009.

[9]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “Shapiro: economy will force quick action on climate change“, Roll Call, 30 March 2009.

Rare El’ements Salon Inspired Eco-Luxury Hair Care has totally taken care of this problem.  Not only does this indulgent hair care system leave hair strong, silky and smooth, but also helps to protect color.  Amazing!

The line consists of Pure Shampoo, Essential Conditioner and EL’ Treatment, a rejuvenating scalp and hair serum.  All products are made with pure, healthy ingredients and contain exotic oils from Africa to nourish and moisturize scalp and hair.  No sulfates, silicones, synthetic fragrance or parabens.

Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty….my personal review.  I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten excited over a new all natural hair care line that boasts full, soft, shiny locks only to be (yet again) disappointed.  That is not to say that there aren’t a few brands out there really living up to their claims.  John Masters Organics hair care, for example, is a  very affordable line that works really well.  But my hair is fickle and moody (a combination of fine, dry and wavy/frizzy) that needs gentle care in order to behave itself. 

When I first learned about Rare El’ements from my friend Terri at The Nature of Beauty, I got all pumped again but reeled myself back in, expecting yet another disappointment.  Well, I could tell immediately that this was no ordinary natural shampoo and conditioner.  My hair was soft, smooth, wavy but not frizzy and really looked great.  And (the true test) continued to be so after several days of using Rare El’ements.  No honeymoon phase.

The bottom line is this;  yes, Rare El’ements is on the higher end – $34 for the Shampoo,  $44 for the Conditioner and the Serum is $44 as well – but is very concentrated and will last you quite a while.  And for the results, quite worth every cent.  Honestly, I plan to never be without the stuff.

Photo credit: jurvetson

This past Friday the House of Representatives in USA voted yes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a cap-and-trade energy bill, by a vote of 219 to 212. This historic climate change bill will require limits on pollution responsible for man-made climate change and it will help USA create a green economy, if it also gets thumbs up in the Senate.

“After a tense debate, in which the margin of success or failure never moved beyond a handful of votes, the House of Representatives passed the most sweeping climate change policy ever considered by Congress early Friday evening, the Huffington Post reports.

The outcome had remained up in the air up until the actual vote, with the White House and the president himself engaging in a heavy lobbying campaign aimed at restoring Democratic Party unity that seemed to be fracturing.”

President Barack Obama said in his weekly address that this new bill will help “create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change.”

Steve Bouchard, Campaign Manager for Repower America, said in a statement after the vote that the House of Representatives had just passed a “landmark bill that will propel our nation toward a clean energy future.” But Bouchard also warned that the fight wasn’t over yet:

“It’s not over though. The debate moves on to the Senate where our opponents will redouble their efforts. There will be more distortions and foot dragging, but the momentum is on our side.

Today, we have something to celebrate. For the first time in decades, we have taken bold action to help solve the climate crisis.”

But not everyone is happy about the bill. Republicans have complained that the energy bill is just a new “energy tax” and falsely claims it will cost households in USA $3,100 every year. The Daily Green reports:

“This debate has sprung largely from a Republican misreading (why not be generous?) of an MIT study that led pundits and politicians to cry about the perils of a new “energy tax” that might cost American households $3,100 every year. (Though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, I seem to hear it every other Saturday in the Republican response to President Obama’s weekly address.) The author of the MIT study puts the cost at $800, while the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated the annual cost at $1,500 and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost at just $140 or lower.”

Thomas Friedman, author of the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded – Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How it Can Renew America”, writes on the New York Times that he thinks the energy bill is a “mess” and that it “stinks”. Friedman blames the Republicans, President Barack Obama and “We the People” for being responsible for such a weak bill. But he still calls for the Senate to pass the bill:

“Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as Americavoting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.”

In advance of the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett said that the bill “chooses politics over science” and that it “elevates industry interests over national interest.” She even called for the Congress to reject the bill and instead begin “immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change”.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

[…]This legislation sends a strong and unmistakable signal to the world that the United States is not yet ready to show the leadership necessary to reach a strong agreement at Copenhagen in December. Already, we are seeing the impact of this signal as one country after another retreats from the aggressive targets needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

In a response to the thumbs up for the energy bill in the House of Representatives Muffett called the bill “a victory” for coal, oil and other dirty industry lobbyists. She also said that “it is a tremendous loss for the American people and for the world in our common fight to avert climate catastrophe.”

“To avoid the worst effects of global warming, we must reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and the short term target of this bill is a paltry 4%. The massive offsets in this bill means that we can continue at our current emissions level for years, and huge giveaways mean a new generation of nuclear and coal plants.

Unless the bill is substantially strengthened in the Senate, we have a lot more work ahead of us. We are calling upon President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to get us back to the science-based targets he promised.”

The energy and climate bill has a long way to go before becoming law as it has to pass voting in the Senate were more right-wingers, lobbyists paid by the coal and oil industry and even some environmentalists will try to fight the bill.

“As I became aware of the mounting global water crisis, I realized that it represented a clash of cultures – between a culture that values water as a shared sacred source of all life and a corporate culture that regards water as a commodity to be bought and sold.”

Quote from Shalini Kantayya, director of A Drop of Life – a futuristic sci-fi flick about the mounting water crisis winning Best Short Film at Palm Beach International as well as the Audience Choice Award at the IUOW Film competition. Will check it out some time (two years late anyway).

“Who controls water controls life”

Photo credit: Darwin Bell

“Would you like a bag with that?”, asks the girl at the grocery store check-out. You glance at the couple of items purchased, and think of the walk home. She sees you hesitating and adds “It’s okay; these plastic bags are biodegradable. In fact, they’re made of corn!”

“Perfect!”, you think. Or is it?

The Good

This specific type of plastic is called PLA, or Polylactic acid. Simply put, PLA is created by fermenting the starch of corn kernels. Plastic made from PLA look and feel exactly like regular plastic, and PLA plastic bags are just as durable and lightweight as their non-PLA counterparts.

A renewable resource, PLA or “corn plastic” is 100% compostable. Under the right conditions, PLA breaks down in about one to six months in a commercial composter.

The Bad

But wait… what about in a landfill? As we all know, unless recycled, plastic bags that are used for groceries end up in city landfills, not commercial composters. In order to biodegrade, the PLA must receive sufficient amounts of oxygen, water, light and soil, which are not usually present in a landfill. Thus, it can take corn plastic just as long as regular plastic to break down—up to one thousand years. Unfortunately, that means that using corn plastic bags to line trash cans is no better than using regular plastic.

The Ugly

Although corn may be a renewable resource, there is only a certain amount of corn in the world to be used at a certain time. The use of corn for anything other than food seems a little selfish when we consider how much of the world’s population go hungry every day. For example, the use of corn for ethanol has increased the price, and the demand, of this important crop. Furthermore, corn crops require an enormous amount of pesticides and chemical fertilizers compared to other US-grown crops.

One other not-to-be-overlooked fact about corn plastic: regardless of what some companies claim, PLA can cause severe reactions to people who have corn allergies. Accordingly PLA plastic should be clearly marked as derived from corn.

The Verdict?

PLA plastic may be a step in the right direction when it comes to sustainability, it’s one piece of a much wider issue. As in most cases, all parts of the story need to be closely examined. Perhaps with further research, a better alternative can be found. For now, however, if corn plastic seems too good to be true, it probably is. Next time, take a reusable cloth bag to the supermarket.

In December 2009 the governments of the world will discuss their responses to the climate emergency facing the planet. Civilized, educated , humanitarian people dread the outcome which is likely to be grossly deficient. However in March 2009 2,500 participants (mostly climate science researchers) gathered for the scientific Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (“Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark).

The must-read Synthesis Report from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (“Climate Change, Global risks, challenges & decisions”, Copenhagen 10-12 March, 2009, University of Copenhagen, Denmark) has just been released.

This is a vital synthesis of current climate science from the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference that involved 2,500 professional participants, most of them climate science researchers. All were welcome and the program and abstracts of the papers presented are available here.

The key moral imperative of the Synthesis Report is “Inaction is inexcusable”.

The members of the writing team for this extensively and expertly reviewed 2009 Synthesis Report are listed below together with their credentialing institutional affiliations.

• Professor Katherine Richardson (Vice-Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark),
• Professor Will Steffen (Executive Director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Australia)
• Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany and Visiting Professor, University of Oxford, UK).
• Professor Joseph Alcamo (Chief Scientist designate, United Nations Environment Program, UNEP).
• Dr. Terry Barker (Centre for Climate Change Mitigation research, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK)
• Professor Daniel M. Kammen (Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Energy & resources Group & Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, USA).
• Professor Dr. Rik Leemans (Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Netherlands)
• Professor Diana Liveman (Director of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK).
• Professor Mohan Munasinghe (Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Sri Lanka).
• Dr. Balgis Osman-Elashe (Higher Council for Environment & Natural Resources, HCENR, Sudan).
• Professor Sir Nicholas Stern (top UK climate change economist, IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government, London School of Economics, UK).
• Professor Ole Wæver (Political Science Department, University of Copenhagen, Denmark).

The Synthesis Report was in 6 key areas that are briefly summarized below (with complementary documented comments added).

1. Climatic trends – the Report details the remorseless INCREASING in past decades in sea level; in energy content change for glaciers, ice caps, .Greenland ice sheet, Antarctic ice sheet, contents, atmosphere and Arctic sea ice; Greenland melt area; Greenland ice mass loss; surface air temperature; ocean heat content; atmospheric CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and total greenhouse gases (GHGs) in CO2-equivalent.

For recent, detailed, incisive assessments of the extent of the current climate emergency.

2. Social and environmental disruption – the Report details actual climate disruption realities that have ALREADY HAPPENED such as (a) increased hurricane intensity, drought, fires and flooding and impacts on tropical diseases, agriculture, malnutrition, and health in general; (b) major ecosystem damage including boreal forest die-back (N America), melt of Greenland ice shelf, changes in ENSO amplitude and frequency, dieback of Amazon rainforest, Atlantic deep water formation, European ozone hole, boreal forest dieback (Russia), Permafrost and tundra loss (N America, Russia), Sahara greening, West African monsoon shift, Indian Monsoon chaotic multistability, instability of West Antarctic ice sheet and changes in Antarctic bottom water formation; (c) huge decrease in ocean pH (increased acidity) in the last 2 centuries that is unprecedented over the last 20 million years and with devastating consequences for coral and crustaceans; (d) increased species extinction rates 1,000 times that of background rates typical of the planet’s history; and (e) huge increased risks in relations to species, extreme weather events, global distribution of impacts, aggregate impacts and risk of large scale discontinuities.

For a series of brilliant power point presentations on the current predicament from top climate scientists and analysts (Including Professor John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser) see “8 top Climate Change power point lectures & 300.org 300 ppm CO2 target“.

America is a major GHG polluter and a leading annual per capita GHG polluter but is already being seriously impacted itself by man-made global warming as set out in the key 2009 summary document from the US Administration entitled “Global climate change impacts in the United States”.

3. Long term strategy: global targets and deadline – “rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid” dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined”. The equilibrium temperature increase is a very damaging 2.0-2.4oC increase over the pre-industrial for a 85-50% decrease on 2000 GHG and a 445-490 ppm CO2-e or 350-400 ppm CO2 peaking at 2000-2015 (roughly the current situation with CO2-e of 460 ppm but with zero net emissions) – however, this rises to a catastrophic 4.9-6.1oC increase for a 90-140% increase on 2000 GHG and a 855-1130 ppm CO2-e or 660-790 ppm CO2 peaking at 2060-2090 (this latter scenario exceeding the projections of world-leading per capita GHG polluter and world #1 coal exporter Australia which under present policies will increase its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution on the 2000 value by about 80% by 2050).

The most shocking finding (apart from the immense, life-threatening climate disruption already occurring across the world with a temperature of +0.7oC above that in 1900 and with a further circa 1oC virtually inevitable) is the over 50% probability of exceeding very damaging +2oC if we have as our target “zero net emissions” from the PRESENT atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) level of about 460 ppm CO2-equivalent.

Indeed a survey of the Copenhagen Conference participants found that 90% expected 2oC to be exceeded (see “World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree”, The Guardian, UK, 2009).

4. Equity dimension – “climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world … tackling climate change should be seen as integral to the broader goals of enhancing socio-economic development and equity throughout the world” .

This indeed is the “elephant in the room” because already 16 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (overwhelmingly in the non-European Developing World) (see my book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” and my 2008 lecture with the same title). The partial breakdown of 16 million people dying avoidably each year (2003 data) is 0.18 million for the Western European World (including colonization-derived Overseas Europe), 1.1 million for the Eastern European World, 14.8 million for the non-European World, 9.5 million under-5 year old infants, about 7.4 million for the Muslim World, 0.6 million in Bangladesh, 3.7 million in India and 0.9 million in Pakistan) but Professor Lovelock’s estimation of circa 10 billion excess deaths (mostly non-European) due to global warming by the end of the century lifts the average 21st century global annual death rate to an horrendous 10,000 million/100 years = 100 million per year (see: Gaia Vince (2009), “One last chance to save mankind“, New Scientist, 23 January 2009 and Gideon Polya “Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Genocide & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise“).

Currently, “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution from its world’s biggest coal exports is included) (latest available estimates plus 2005 data from Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”).

Top climate scientists say that the atmospheric CO2 needs to be urgently reduced to 300 ppm to make the planet safe for all peoples and all species (see 300.org: http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org ). However, with global annual greenhouse gas pollution still INCREASING it is clear that World governments still do not appreciate the dire urgency of the problem. The worst offender by far is Australia which has annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh – but which under its policy of “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” is committed to INCREASING its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution from 2000 levels by 40% (2020) and by 80% (2050).

5. Inaction is inexcusable – “Society already has many tools and approaches – economic, technological, behavioural, and managerial – to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. If these tools are not widely and vigorously implemented, adaptation to the unavoidable climate change and the social transformation required to decarbonise economies will not be achieved. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to achieve effective and rapid adaptation and mitigation. These include job growth in the sustainable sector; reductions in the health, social economic and environmental costs of climate change; and the repair of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services”.

For a clear statement about climate emergency facts and required actions see the summary provided by the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group. The key required actions advocated include: 1. Change of societal philosophy to one of scientific risk management and biological sustainability with complete cessation of species extinctions and zero tolerance for lying. 2. Urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to a safe level of about 300 ppm as recommended by leading climate and biological scientists. 3. Rapid switch to the best non-carbon and renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tide and hydro options that are currently roughly the same market price as coal burning-based power) and to energy efficiency, public transport, needs-based production, re-afforestation and return of carbon as biochar to soils coupled with correspondingly rapid cessation of fossil fuel burning, deforestation, methanogenic livestock production and population growth.

A clear strategy to get governments to finally take action over the climate emergency is the so-called ABC Protocol that involves (A) Accountability of greenhouse gas (GHG)-polluting climate criminals imposing GHG pollution on all peoples and species (e.g. by naming via an electronic Climate Doomsday Book or virtual Climate Doomsday Monument of bad and good guys; by using a Green Credentialling or Green Certification system to identify products, people, companies and countries we can support and those we must boycott; and by international and intra-national sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, reparations demands, civil actions and criminal prosecutions); (B) a Badge that activists can wear with a simple core pictorial or word message (e.g. “Climate Emergency” or “Climate Emergency Network”) or a core numerical message (e.g. “300” or “350” to indicate the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration to about 300 parts per million (ppm) or to less than 350 ppm, respectively); and (C) a Credo or simple core statement of beliefs e.g. “Safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet requires rapid reduction of atmospheric CO2 to about 300 ppm”.

6. Meeting the challenge – the key final conclusion was ultimately one about human values and the enormous risk we face: “Ultimately these human dimensions of climate change [the cultures and worldviews of individuals and communities] will determine whether humanity eventually achieves the great transformation that is in sight at the beginning of the 21st century or whether humanity ends the century with a “miserable existence in a +5oC world”.

The ultimate philosophic point is what value do we place on other peoples and other species? The Australia-based 300.org is explicit in its position, a position that is shared by the Climate Emergency Network, the influential Melbourne-based Yarra valley Climate Action Group, and by over 140 climate action groups that attended the January 2009 Canberra Climate Action Summit: “There must be a safe and sustainable existence for all peoples and all species on our warming-threatened Planet and this requires a rapid reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to about 300 parts per million”.

Key quote from the speech:

“The truth is the climate nightmare is real and happening now. We are destroying the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the snow caps. We are eroding our beaches, and our coastal cities will face managed retreat due to sea level rise. We are drying our food bowl, the Murray Darling, beyond repair, jeopardising rural communities and our food security.

Many of our Asia Pacific neighbours are struggling with rising seas and extreme weather which threatens a refugee crisis beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

The Himalayan glaciers, which feed all the major rivers of Asia  — the Ganges and Brahmaputra, the Mekong, the Yellow and Yangtze  — are melting away. Once they are gone, a third of the world’s people face a parched, hungry and, most likely, violent future.”

For what we have to do urgently – install renewables, return air CO2 to 300 ppm, return carbon as biochar to the soil, re-afforestation and cessation of carbon pollution and deforestation – see Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions and 300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm.

You know there are certain ingredients that you don’t want in your cosmetic products.  But you may not know all of the name variations or even exactly why certain ingredients are harmful.

Well, leave it to Stephanie Greenwood at Bubble & Bee Organic to come up with an easy, convenient and (even) fun way to keep you in the know on toxic ingredient education.  With “Today’s Chemical” (Stephanie’s new chemical ingredient education service) you can ask a question about toxic ingredients in cosmetics, learn about chemicals and get recipes for homemade beauty products.

To get this free service you can either sign-up and have it delivered right to your inbox or subscribe to the RSS feed.  Check out Today’s Chemical now and get yourself informed.

An overwhelming global scientific consensus says that man-made global warming is happening NOW. Indeed for the latest see the report from President Obama’s science advisers that states that massive climatic disruption is already affecting the United States and that projects that the average U.S. temperature could rise by as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century (see “White House: climate change damage happening now. Obama’s first global warming report most dire yet: Ill effects already here, will get worse”). Thus White House report report co-author Anthony Janetos of the University of Maryland:

“There are in some cases already serious consequences. This is not a theoretical thing that will happen 50 years from now. Things are happening now.”

Nevertheless the climate sceptics are unfazed and essentially all governments around the world are committed to continuing to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration above the present level of circa 390 parts per million (ppm) to even more dangerous levels.

In contrast, in climate criminal Australia (one of the world’s worst annual per capita greenhouse gas polluters) climate activists and leading climate scientists are calling for urgent reduction of atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm. The Australia-based Climate Emergency Network, the Canberra Climate Action Summit (over 140 Australia-wide climate action groups), the influential Yarra Valley Climate Action Group and 300.org all say – informed by the latest science from America’s Dr James Hansen (NASA GISS), Australia’s Professor Barry Brook (climate science, University of Adelaide) and others – that for a safe and sustainable existence for all people and all species the atmospheric CO2 of our warming-threatened planet must be urgently reduced from the current circa 390 ppm to 300 ppm (click here for details and documentation).

What can a man believe? Well, just as we turn to top medical specialists for advice on life-threatening disease, so we turn to the opinions of top scientists and in particular top biological and climate scientists for climate change risk assessment and climate emergency facts and requisite actions. Further, we haven’t the time or money to attend university courses on climate science – but we can access publicly available lectures given by top climate scientists and analysts.

A number of readily accessed, readily scanned, easily comprehended and brilliantly illustrated climate change power point lectures are available which point to the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current ~390 ppm to ~300 ppm.

Thus that by NASA’s Dr Hansen entitled “Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008) (address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages]) spells out that 300-325 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration is needed for restoration of sea ice, QUOTES: “Target CO2: <350 ppm To preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed" and "Arctic Sea Ice Criterion. 1. Restore Planetary Energy Balance -> CO2: 385 ppm -> 325-355 ppm. 2. Restore Sea Ice: Aim for – 0.5 W/m2, CO2: 385 -> 300-325 ppm. Range based on uncertainty in present planetary energy imbalance (between 0.5 and 1 W/m2)”.

Some of these excellent power point lectures on climate change are accessible via the links provided below. The credentials of these top scientists and analysts are given in parentheses.

1. Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia), “Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies” (2008), an outline of paleoclimate history, climatic disruption and mitigation and adaptation strategies [40 pages].

2. Dr Andrew Glikson (Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology & Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia), “Human evolution and the atmosphere: return of the Pliocene?” (2008), illustrating the global temperature, methane and CO2 levels in the generally cooling period since the Pliocene (3 Mya, million years ago) during which time the genus Homo evolved to yield Homo sapiens (us) about 100,000 years ago. However, massive man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in the industrial era (post-1750) has pushed atmospheric CO2 concentration outside the range of 180-300 ppm obtaining during the final evolution of Homo sapiens from his immediate precursors over the last 600,000 years [46 pages].

3. Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York; member of the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences; 2007 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science), “Global warming 20 years later: tipping points near” (2008) – address to National Press Club, and House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global warming, Washington DC [44 pages].

4. Dr James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor, Columbia University, New York), “Climate threat to the planet. Implications for energy policy and intergenerational justice”, Bjerknes Lecture, American Biophysical Union, San Francisco, California, 17 December, 2008 [39 pages]. [For a series of other incisive writings by Dr James Hansen see: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/, most notably Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009].

5. Professor John Holdren (Professor of Environmental Policy and Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University; Director, Woods Hole Research Center; former president, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS; President Barack Obama’s chief science adviser), “The Science of Climate Disruption” (2008) – a summary of the basis of man-made global warming and the climatic disruption that has already occurred [32 pages].

6. Dr Graeme Pearman (former Climate director, Australian CSIRO, Australia’s premier scientific research organization; GP Consulting; interim director, MSI; Monash University Sustainability Group), “Climate change: the evidence, science and current projections” (2008) [37 pages].

7. Dr Peter Seligman (Bionic Ear engineer, Cochlear Pty Ltd and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia), “Bang for Buck in CO2 abatement” (2008) discusses where you can invest your money most effectively to reduce your Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions; some of our favourite solutions do not bear up under his analysis [43 pages].

8. David Spratt and Phillip Sutton, Climate Emergency Network, “A Safe Climate Future”, (2008), based on the book “Climate Code Red. The case for emergency action” by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton (Scribe, Melbourne, 2008), a powerful summary of the latest climate science results by 2 leading non-scientist climate activists heavily informed by top climate scientists such as NASA’s Dr James Hansen who indeed endorsed “Climate Code Red” as “a compelling case … we face a climate emergency” [95 pages].

The brilliant power point lectures I have listed above are not only educative for climate activists – they should be very useful for educating the public as a whole. Please tell everyone you can and encourage them to judge for themselves.

All of the above are referred to by me (biochemist, teacher, La Trobe University, Melbourne and U3A, Melbourne) in my “Global Warming, Climate Emergency Course” (2009) detailed course notes for an 8 x 2 hour course for the Yarra Valley University of the Third Age (U3A) on global warming, the present climatic disruption and what we can do about it [if you are in Melbourne , Australia: Semester 2, St. Andrew’s Hall, Rosanna, Melbourne, Australia; 1.30-3.30 pm, each Tuesday, 7 July 2009 onwards; one semester course attendance cost A$15 for non-U3A members, A$7.50 for members of another U3A branch]. You can attend this up-to-date climate change course for FREE from the other side of the planet by simply accessing the 52 pages of carefully documented notes via this link.