11:11 Universal Peace Now

Be the Change

Interconnecting movements for world aid and peace

Learn, Share, Act for Darfur and Beyond

Peace on Earth, God Will Toward All

Peace Pod -- Peace Buds

Peace Through Commerce

Peaceful Warrier: The Movie

Seeds for Peace

The Campaign to Establish a U.S. Dept. of Peace

Water for World Peace

Here is the link to the petition to the Environmental Protection Agency, online at the Union of Concerned Scientists:

http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_13_07_ozone_standard_comments/?qp_source=wacucs%5fhomearspotlig

Ozone, a chemical that occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, helps protect us from the sun's radiation. But, when it's released close to Earth's surface through human activity, ozone is dangerous and can cause numerous adverse health effects such as asthma and lung damage. The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control pollution from ozone based solely on the best available science. Yet the EPA has announced a draft ozone pollution standard that falls short of what the agency's own scientists and science advisors consider safe.

The EPA is currently accepting comments on its proposal. Urge the EPA to use the best available science to set a stronger final ozone standard that protects our health.

Ozone, a chemical that occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, helps protect us from the sun's radiation. But, when it's released close to Earth's surface through human activity, ozone is dangerous and can cause numerous adverse health effects such as asthma and lung damage. The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control pollution from ozone based solely on the best available science. Yet the EPA has announced a draft ozone pollution standard that falls short of what the agency's own scientists and science advisors consider safe.

On the website, there is a draft letter which you can revise if  you want, before sending by email.

If you wonder why the Environment Protection Agency and other government departments are not working in our best interests or why the Kyoto agreement is not on Bush's radar screen, have a read through Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s book Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Have Plundered Our Country and Hijacked Our Democracy.  It is a well-written book and you won't believe the scale of damage that George W. and his administration have done to the environment.

American Culture

Arizona Zaangha

Aussie Zaadz

Austin FLOW Friends

Austin Integral - A.I.

Austin Zaadsters

Charlestonians Unite!

Chicago Pod

Colorado

Colorado Conscious

Columbia Gorge Zaadsters

Columbus Zaadsters

Dallas/Fort Worth Zaadsters

DC-MD-VA Zaadsters

Fayetteville

Florida Reiki

Greater Boston Musicians Circle

Hawaii

Indian Hues

Ireland's Eyes

LA & SoCal

living green LA

LondonEngland

Maine Solutions

Maui

Maui Permaculture Network - MPN

Memphis

Mexico

New England Zaadsters

New York Notationals

Niagara.Ontario.Zaadz

North Carolina

NSP Pittsburgh Chapter

NW Chicago Burbs Zaadz

Ohio

Pennsylvania@Zaadz

Philadelphia Evolutionary Enlightenment Community

Pod Texaz -- For All Y'All Podners

Raleigh, NC

Sacred Sedona

San Antonio Zadsters

San Francisco Bay Area

San Luis Obispo County, CA

Scandinavia

Seattle (The Emerald City)

South Florida Zaadz

Spiritual Cinema Circle - New England

The Brazilian Connection

TX.zaadz

Vancouver Zaadsters

Western Massachusetts Pod

WiZaadz of Oz  [Australia]

ZaaDZNYC

Here is an article from a British magazine Ecologist about the changes that are happening worldwide, which Paul Hawken calls, the "movement of movements".

I was once watching a large demonstration trying to joi up with a friend. Tens of thousands of people carrying a variety of handmade placards strolled down a wide boulevard, to the accompaniment of chants, slogans, and song. The signs referred to politicians, different species, prisoners of conscience, corporate campaigns, wars, agriculture, water, workers' rights, dissidents and more. Standing near me, a policeman was trying to understand what appeared to be a political Tower of Babel. The broad-shouldered Irishman shook his head and asked rhetorically, 'What do these people want?' Fair question.

Two million strong
Over the past 15 years I have given nearly 1,000 talks about the environment, and after every speech a smaller crowd would gather to talk, ask questions and exchange business cards.

I would get from five to 30 such cards per speech, and after being on the road for a week or two would return home with a few hundred of them stuffed into various pockets. Over the years, the number of cards mounted into the thousands and whenever I glanced at them, I came back to one question: Did anyone truly appreciate how many groups and organisations were engaged in progressive causes? At first, this was a matter of curiosity, but it slowly grew into a hunch that something larger was afoot, a significant social movement that was eluding the radar of mainstream culture.

So, intrigued, I began to count. I look at government records for different countries and, using various methods to approimate the number of environmental and social justice groups from tax census data, I initially estimatd a total of 30,000 environmental organisations around the globe. And when I added social justice and indigenous peoples' rights organisations, the number exceeded 100,000. I then researched to see if there had ever been any equal to this movement in scale or scope, but I couldn't find anything, past or present. The more I probed, the more organisations I unearthed, and the numbers continued to climb as I discovered lists, indexes and small databases specific to certain sectors or geographic areas. In trying to pick up a stone, I found the exposed tip of a much larger geological formation. I soon realised that my initial estimated of 100,000 organisations was off by at least a factor of 10, and I now believe there are over one -- and maybe even two -- million organisations around the world working toward ecological sustainability and social justice.

By any conventional definition, this vast collection of commited individuals does not constitute a movement. Movements have leaders and ideologies. Poeple join movements, study their tracts, and identify themselves with a group. Movements, in short, have followers. This movement, however, doesn't fit the standard model. It is dispersed, inchoate and fiercely independent. It has no manifesto or doctrine, no overriding authority. It is taking shape in school rooms, farms, jungles, villages, companies, deserts, fisheries, slums and yes, even fancy hotel conference centres. One of its distinctive features is that it is tentatively emerging as a global humanitarian movement arising from the bottom up.

Historically, social movements have arisen primarily in response to injustice, inequities and corruption. Those woes still remain, joined by a new condition that has no precedent: the planet has a life-threatening disease, marked by massive ecological degradation and rapid climate change. As I counted these vast numbers of organisations it crossed by mind that perhaps I was witnessing the growth of something organic, if not biologic. Rather than a movement in the conventional sense, could it be an instinctive, collective response to threat? Is it atomised for reasons that are innate to its purpose? How does it function? How fast is it growning? How is it connected? Why is it largely ignored? Does it have a history? Can it successfully address the issues that governments are failing to address: energy, jobs, conservation, poverty and global warming?

Invisible and unreported
I sought a name for the movement, but none exists. I met people who wanted to structure or organise it -- a hard task, as it is easily the most complex association of human beings ever assembled. Many outside the movement critique it as powerless, but that assessment does not stop its growth. When describing it to politicians, academics and businesspeople, I found that many believe they are already familiar with this movement, how it works, what it consists of and its approximate size. They base their conclusion on media reports about Amnesty International, the Sierra Club, Oxfam, or other venerable institutions. They may be directly acquainted with a few small organisations and may even sit on the board of a local group. For them and others, the movement is amall and circumsribed, a new type of charity, with a sprinkling of ragtag activists who occasionally give it a bad name.

People inside the movement can also underestimate it, basing their judgment on only the organisations they are linked to, even though their networks can only encompass a fraction of the whole. But after spending years researching this phenomenon, including creating with my colleagues a global database of its constituent organisations, I have come to this conclusion: this is the largest social movement in all of human history. No one knows its scope, and how it functions is more mysterious than what meets the eye.

When discussing the movement with academics or friends in the media, the first question they pose is usually the same: If it is so large, why isn't this movement more visible? By that they mean, why isn't it more visible to news media, especially TV? Although global in its scope, the movement generally remains unseen until it gatheres to take part in demonstrations, whether in London, Prague, or New York, or at annual meetings of the World Social Forum, after which it seems to disappear again, reinforcing the perception that it is a will-o'the-wisp. The movement doesn't fit neatly into any category in modern society, and what can't be visualised can't be named. In business, what isn't measured isn't managed; in the media, what isn't visible isn't reported. Media coverage of the death of Pope John Paul and the election of Pope Benedict easily surpassed all coveraged deveoted to this movement over the past 10 years, yet the number of people directly working and indirectly involved with this movement is greater than the number of people active in the Catholic Church. The papacy has hisory and specificity; the movement is about the future.

The force of truth
If you look at the values, missions, goals and principles of the movement you will see that at the core of all organisations are two principles, albeit unstated: first is the Golden Rule, to treat others as you would like to be treated; second is the sacredness of all life, whether it be a creature, child, or culture. What unifies it is ideas, not ideologies. There is a vast difference between the two: ideas question and liberate, while ideologies justify and dictate. One of the differences between the bottom-up movement now erupting around the world and established ideologies is that the movement develops its ideas based on observation, whereas ideologies act on the basis of belief or theory.

Are there ideologues in the movement? To be sure, but fundamentally the movement is that part of humanity that has assumed the task of protecting and saving itself. If we accept that the metaphor of an organism can be applied to humankind, we can imagine a collective movement that would protect, repair and restore that organism's capacity to endure when threatened. If so, that capacity to respond would function like an immune system, which operates independently of an individual person's intent.

Just as the immune system is the line of internal defence that allows an organism to persist over time, sustainability is a strategy for humanity to continue to exist over time. The word immunity comes from the Latin im munis, meaning 'ready to serve'. The immune system is usually portrayed in militaristic terms: a biological defence department armed to fight off invading organisams. In the textbooks case, antibodies attach themselves to molecular invaders, which are then neutralised and destroyed by white blood cells. Simple and elegant, but the process of fending off invaders and disease is more complex and interesting.

The workings of the immune system sound orderly and precise, but they are not. Rather than 'inside cells' automacally destroying 'outside cells', there is a mediatory response to pathogens, as if the immune seem learned millions of years ago that detente and getting to know potential adversaries was wiser than first-strike responses, that achieving balance was more appropriate than eradication. The immune system depends on its diversity to main reilience, with which it can maintain homeostatis, respond to surprises, learn from pathogens and adapt to sudden changes. The implication for medicine is clear: to fend off cancer and infection, we may need to understand how to increase the imune network's connectivity rather than the intensity of its response.

Similarly, the widely diverse network of organisations proliferating in the world today may be a better defence against injustice than F-16 fighter jets. Connectivity allows these organisations to be task-specific and focus their resouces precisely and frugally. Incremental success is achieved by consensus operating with information structures, where no one person has all or much power. The force that such groups exert is in the form of dialogue and truthfulness.

Computers, cell phones, broadband, and the internet have created perfect conditions for the margins to unify. These enable big corperatios just as much as small NGOs, but the latter gain greater advantage because these new tehnologies amplify smallness more effectively than largeness. Large organisations don't need networks; small ones thrive on them. Webs are complete systems of interconnected elements that link individual actions to large grids of knowledge and movement. Websites link to other sites with more links to other sites ad infinitum, creating a critical, fluid mass of information that evolves and grows as needed -- very much like the response of our immune systems.

The ultimate purpose of a gobal immune system is to identify what is not life-affirming and to contain, neutralise or eliminate it. Where communities, cultures, and ecosystems have been damaged, it seeks to prevent additional harm and then heal and restore the damage. Most social-change organisations are under-staffed and under-funded, and nearly all are negotiating steep learning curves. It is not easy to create a system that has no antecedent, and if you study the taxonomy of the movement you will see a new curriculum for humankind emerging, some of it corrective, some of it restorative and some of it highly imaginative.

Fighting for humanity
In many countries, participation in the movement can be dangerous. We memorialise the well-known murders of South African balck consciousness activist Stephen Biko and rubber tapper and environmentalist Chico Mendes, yet people in this movement are killed and intimidated every day. When you see images of Amazon Indians marching in full regalia to Sao Palo to protext at Brazilian government policies, they are individuals who are as courageous as they are terrified. I still recall a photograph of a small Mayan gilr holding her mother's hand, looking up in disbelief at a phalanx of black polycarbonate shields and masked police gripping their batons in Guatemala.

When the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan march for women's rights without their burqas, they display an extraordinary valour, because they know there will be repirsals. Then the Wild Yak Brigde was formed in Shidou, China, to protect the endangered Tibetan antelope, poachersd murdered its first two leaders. Most movement activists start like Chico Mendes, believing they are fighting for a specific cause, in his case rubber trees, and realise later thay re fighting for a greater purpose;'...then I thought I was trying to save the Aamazon rainforest. Now I realise I was fighting for humanity.'

To deal with the pathogens, the movement has had to become an array of different types or organisations. But the fact that the movement is made up of pieces does not mean that it can only work piecemeal.

Some would argue that it is counterproductive to conflate all the different organisations and types of organisations into a single movement, that it is self-evident that such divergent aims cannot create an effecitve, unified body. It's true that pluralism, the de facto tactic of a million small organisations, functions best in a society that cultivates diversity, dialogue and collaboration. In a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us society, small, single-issue organisations are effectively marginalised. In the USA, the environmental and social justice movements emerged in what was then a pluralistic society. Because that is increasingly not the case, the stratagems and goals of the movement may be inadequate to the increasing centralisation of power.

Nonetheless, if anything can off us hope for the future, it will be an assembly of humanity that it representative but not centralised, because an ideology can never heal the wounds of this world. History shows all too eloquently that no ideology has evern amounted to more than a palliative for any dire condition. The immune system is the most complex system in the body, just as the body is the most complex organism on earth, and the most compicated assembly of organisms is human civilisation.

Some people think the movement is defined by what it is against, but thelanguage of the movement is focused on keeping the conversation gonig, because ideas that inform it never end, grwoth without enquiality, wealth without plunder, work without exploitation, a future without fear. There are two kinds of games -- games that end games that don't. Philosopher James Crase called these finite and infinite games.

We play infinite games to play; they have no losers because the object of the game is to keep playing. Infinitie games pay it forward and fill future coffers. Sustainability, ensuring the future of life on earth, is an infinite game, the endless undertaking of generosity on behalf of all. To answer the policeman's question, 'these people' are reimagining the world.

Paul Hawken is an environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist and author. His latest book is Blessed Unrest (Viking Press, 2007).

Here is an October 1, 2007, article from The Daily Green , (a consumer's guide to the green revolution) about the research being done on the affects of ozone pollution.  It is called:

SMOG ATTACKS IMMUNE SYSTEM

Ozone Pollution Impairs Immune System in Lab Mice--And Us?

Ozone pollution is associated with increased rates of hospitalization for lung ailments like asthma attacks and for heart problems like heart attacks. Exactly how the pollutant - a major component of smog, which is formed when smokestack and tailpipe emissions cook in the hot summer sun - does its damage has been unclear.

New research at Duke University Medical Center suggests that ozone attacks the immune system, making those who breathe in the pollutant more susceptible to secondary infections.

At least, that's what happens to mice in the lab, according to new peer-reviewed research published today in the Journal of Immunology.

Exposure to ozone led not only to an increase in lung injury from bacterial toxins, but also a die-off of immune system cells designed to attack foreign invaders and keep airways clear.

"Small amounts of inhaled foreign material can be relatively harmless, since they stimulate an appropriate innate immune response that protects the lungs," Dr. John Hollingsworth, a pulmonologist and lead author of study, said in a statement made available to the press. "However, it appears that ozone causes the innate immune system to overreact, killing key immune system cells, and possibly making the lung more susceptible to subsequent invaders, such as bacteria."

Here's how the researchers described their study and some of its results:

The innate immune system is the most primitive aspect of the body's defenses. Its cells react indiscriminately to any invader. One of the key cells in the innate immune system is known as a macrophage, Greek for "big eater."

For their experiments, the researchers had mice breathe either room air or air with levels of ozone meant to mirror what an exercising human would experience on a high, or unhealthy, ozone level day. After exposing all mice to the active portion of E. coli bacteria in aerosol form, the researchers studied how the innate immune system responded.

"In the mice exposed to ozone, the airways of the lungs were hyperactive and we found higher concentrations of inflammatory cells," Hollingsworth said. "But more significantly, ozone pre-exposure reduced the number of macrophages in the lung after secondary exposure to inhaled bacterial endotoxin. Exposure to ozone in this context had stimulated them to undergo programmed cell death, or apoptosis."

The researchers also found that the effect of the inhaled ozone was not limited to just the lungs. Mice exposed to ozone were also found to have lower levels of immune system cells circulating in the blood.

The Environmental Protection Agency has set a variety of new rules in recent years designed to limit the pollution that leads to ozone formation. It is also in the midst of setting a new limit for acceptable levels of ozone in the air.

Studies like this one suggest strict limits can have important health benefits.

This is an article from the Toronto Star, dated September 29, 2007, from the "New in Homes", "Environmentalism" section of the newspaper, page H14.

GREEN ROOFS TAKE ROOT ON CITY BUILDINGS

More than 100 in the GTA have adapted the pioneer practice for the eco-conscious present

Stephen Weir
Special to the Star

The drive to develop environmentally friendly, energy-efficient condominiums has given new meaning to sod-turning ceremonies.

More than 100 commercial and condo buildings in the Greater Toronto Area have unveiled "green roofs" -- a 21st-century take on the sod-roof homes that were popular in pioneer days.

Condominium roofs, patios and decks covered in flowers, shrubbery and slow-growing plants are sprouting up all over, so much so that the International Home Show (running from this Friday until Oct. 8) at the International Centre has set up a Green Home Theatre with four daily seminars on eco-building issues, including the living roof.

"Toronto has stepped into an era where the protection of the environment and sustainability are major focuses of our city's future. A green roof -- one that is covered with living plant material -- will become a major component of our daily lives," says Horace Lee, a Toronto biomedical engineer and the owner of Green Space Roofing.

"It is is the same (as the 19th-century sod roof). A green roof cools the environment in the summer and adds insulation in the winter. The living plants help filter out gaseous pollutants, reduce smog and make breathing easier."

Green Space Roofing was formed five years ago and has been installing live coverings on commercial buildings and condominiums for the past three. "The first thing I tell people is that a green roof is not a quick fix," says Lee, who will lecture at the show. "It is a commitment to the environment and it is costly to install.

"It is essentially a system that sits on top of an existing flat or a mildly sloping roof. We lay down high-quality waterproofing and a root repellent system," ye says. "Then there are three major components that must be installed: a drainage system, filter cloth, and the plants anchored in a lightweight growing medium."

When the Prairies were opened up by sodbusters--European farming settlers--their first homes were constructed with whatever could be harvested. Log wall, straw insulation, rock foundations and sod roofs were the materials of choice.

The sod offered substantial protection from the harsh climate. Sedum is the plant of choice for Lee's green roofs. It comes in many shapes, colours and sizes and is known for its water-storing leaves and hardiness.

"However, there are green-roof designs that use many different flowering plants and shrubs and require a deeper growing base, decking and regular maintenance."

The cost of a sedum-anchored green roof runs about $25 to $35 per square foot. Bringing in shrubbery ad wildflowers costs more based on the variety and density.

There are a number of green-roof companies in Ontario and most offer yearly maintenance program.

Toronto builders can reduce the cost of a green roof by applying for a City of Toronto grant, says Peter Love, Ontario's first chief energy conservation officer with the Ontario Power Authority. The Green Roof Incentive Program will subsidize projects at a rate of $50 a square metre, he says.

"There are many benefits to a green roof, but we are most interested because of energy consumption issues," continues Love. "The insulation factor alone should markedly reduce the power use of large buildings. It is too soon to really evaluate the size and rate of the savings here in Toronto, but in other jurisdictions it is obvious that it works."

It's difficult to price a green roof, says Steven Peck, founder and president of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, the association that represents the green roof industry in North America.

"Each one is so different; it is never a do-it-yourself project. So you can't dumb it down and price it like a standard roof you'd buy from the Home Depot.

"However, a building owner considering a green roof should budget on doubling the cost of what a traditional roof would cost," Peck says.

"There are also benefits to a city's water and sewer system," says Love, who will also speak at the Home Show. "Green Roofs decrease the amount of runoff, which otherwise would flow into the sewers."

This is an article from the Saturday, October 6, 2007, issue of the Toronto Star, page U3 of the "Living Green" section, "One Step At a Time".

Eco Assessment

GETTING MY CARBON FOOTPRINT DOWN TO SIZE

How I took on the big factors: transit, heating, electricity and food

Catherine Porter
Environment Reporter

My feet are still big.

But not as big as they were five months ago.

I'm talking about my ecological footprint: how much land, air and water my lifestyle takes up.

I committed last Earth Day to reduce mine, which, despite my self-assessment as a greenie, was a whopping 6.6 hectares, according to one website calculator. That's a hectare less than the Canadian average, but 4.4 hectares more than the global one.

"If everyone lived like you, we'd need 3.7 planets," the website (myfootprint.org) declared damningly.

Today, when I factor in all the changes I've made, my footprint measures 5.8 hectares -- still not as small as I'd like it, but better.

How have I done it?  Mostly by addressing the big stuff.

The three biggest drivers of a fat North American footprint are food, transit, and home heating and electricty, says William Rees, the University of British Columbia professor who pioneered the concept of an ecological footprint.

We live in suburbs without sidewalks and drive our SUVs to the corner store. As much as 80 per cent of our friend and vegetables are trucked or flown in from as far away as China. Our homes leak heat and our appliances vacuum up energy -- a lot of it from fume-belching coal-fired plants.

To change most of these things, we need to act collectively -- building walkable communities and renewable electricity sources. But there is still room for small, individual changes. Baby steps.

TO ADDRESS MY HOME'S soaring hydro use, the first thing I did was replace all 52 incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving compact fluorescents. It's considered the first rite of passage for an eco-convert and it's relatively painless. Compact-fluorescent bulbs use a quarter of the electricity the old-fashioned kind suck up, and since lighting makes up 15 per cent of an average home's electricity bill, they save money in the long-run.

It took less than an hour and cost about $120 but, according to my calculations, will save us 779 kilo-watt hours of electricity by the end of the year.  That's almost a whole month's worth of electricity for us.

Step 2 was dealing with all the power vampires -- the appliances in our home that suck energy even when they are off.

It turns out our computer was the biggest culprit. Even when turned off, it sucked 28 watts of power constantly. The Internet connection was also leaking energy. Multiply that over the year, and we were wasting more than two month's worth of electricity.

The solution was easy. We have now plugged the computer, televisions and DVD player into power bars. When we aren't using them, we turn the power bar off. So simple, and part of the reason our electricity bills have been cut in half.

Next was the clothes dryer. It was the  biggest energy-sucking culprit in our home. You can't buy an EnergyStar model, because as the program's federal manager in Ottawa, Anne Wilkins, told me, "basically, they're big heating elements in a drum. The real EnergyStar dryer is a clothesline outside."

So that's what we did. This winter, we will decorate our basement with drying racks and, by the end of the year, we figure we'll have saved another month's worth of electricity.

FINALLY, I CALLED an energy auditor. They are like home doctors who diagnose your house's energy ailments. He said our 1930s home was about 43-per-cent efficient -- meaning more than half of the heat, or cool air, we pump into it is wasted. He gave us a list of treatments, the first of which called for a new furnace.

This week, we are ripping out the huffing 76-per-cent efficient model and putting in a new, 96 per cent efficient one. We've paid dearly for it -- about $4,000 after government rebates -- but our calculations suggest we'll make that money back in less than five years.

We've also hired contractors to seal the cracks in the walls and ceiling and pad the insulation in our attic -- so our furnace no longer heats the street outside our home.

In total, with these changes, the auditor tells us our home will be 64-per-cent efficient. That should mean we'll cut our heating bills by a fifth.

ON THE FOOD FRONT, I've made a conscious effort to buy local and when I can, organic. I've become a farmers' market junkie. Even on weekends, en route to the cottage, I've stopped at the Barrie farmers' market insteaad of a giant grocery store.

It's a positive change. I've loved getting to known some of the farmers in the Toronto area, and eating food that isn't prepackaged. Plus, it feels good to eat food that isn't jet-lagged from a trip that's cost the atmosphere dearly in carbon dioxide emissions.

Which brings us to travel and transit. It's a big one for me. I didn't think I was a big driver. Usually, I commute to work on the subway or my creaking 10-speed. It turns out though, that I can clock 150 kilmetres easily in a week -- especially if I'm heading to the cottage.

I've made a consious effort to drive less. To get to my weekly ultimate Frisbee games, I've biked or been picked up by a teammate at a subway stop. (Technicallly, it's still travelling by car. But by my reasoning, it's one less car on the road.)

I've taken weekends off from the cottage to stay at home.

FOR THE MOST PART, what has amazed me on this voyage is how easy it has all been. Finding the motivation was the most tiring part. And I'm not close to being finished. This fall, I plan to replace both my toilets with low-flush models, which save not only water, but the electricity used to treat that water, pump it to and from my house and then treat it again as sewage.

Now that's I'm a converted "locavore," I'm going to learn how to can tomatoes, so I can continue eating locally this winter.

And I'm aiming to switch to Bullfrog Power -- the province's only green electricity provider.

One admission: we will fly to North Carolina for a wedding next month. But it's the last flight I plan to make this year. And I've already bought carbon offsets (emission reduction credits you can buy from an organization, like a wind energy company, that can help reduce greenhouse gases).

I agree it's guilt money. But I look at it this way: at least now I realize I have reason to feel builty, and I am living consciously, understanding what harm -- or good -- my choices make.

Under "Science Basics", here are some questions and answers about global warming.  This is from an article by Michael Smith of the Toronto Star, dated Saturday, October 5, 2007, page U5.

GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Some answers about our changing climate

Michael Smith
Special to the Star


What is global warming?

It's the idea that man-made changes to the atmosphere are causing a rise in surface temperature that will have major consequences for climate and ecosystems around the world. Those changes involve increasing levels of gases like carbon dioxide, which cause what's called the "greenhouse effect."


What's the greenhouse effect?

Like the glass in a greenhouse, atmospheric gases such as carbon monoxide, methane and water vapour keep some heat from escaping into space -- one reason a cloudy night in winter is warmer than a clear one.

The Earth's energy, whatever its current form, comes from the sun in the form of radiation, some of which penetrates to warm the surface of the planet and is then reradiated toward space. Without the natural greenhouse effect to trap some of that radiation, the Earth's source would be a chilly -26C on average.

So what's the problem?

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we've been increasingly burning fossil fuels. This has raised the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus increased the greenhouse effect. In fact, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen to about 380 parts per million -- nearly double what it was in the pre-industrial period.

During the past century, the Earth's surface warmed by about 2.5C, and the sharpest rise (about 1.4C) has occurred since 1975. Indeed, the hottest 22 years on record have occurred since 1980. And emissions of all greenhouse gases -- not just carbon dioxide -- increased 70 per cent between 1970 and 2004.

The vast majority of climate scientists now agree that an increased greenhouse effect is driving the climb in surface temperature and that the increase is man-made. Depending on our actions, scientists foresee an increase of between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100.

Considering February in Toronto, wouldn't that be a good thing?

You also have to consider August in Toronto. Any energy saving from lower heating costs would likely be offset by higher electricity charges for air conditioning.

In the Arctic, the sea ice is now melting during the summer more than ever before. As a result, the polar bear may be at risk of extinction. And the regions susceptible to extreme forest fires are projected to expand northward. Also, rising sea levels could cause flooding in Atlantic Canada and severe coastal erosion in the Beaufort Sea.

Can we do anything?

Fewer and more fuel-efficient cars, using renewable sources of energy, and capturing and storing emissions from sources such as coal-fired power plants are among the suggestions that could slow and eventually reverse global climate change.

But aren't we already driving more sensible cars?

Don't bet on it. Between 1990 and 2003 the number of passenger light trucks -- fuel-hungry SUVs, vans and the like -- increased by 48.2 per cent while the number of cars fell, resulting in a increase in total fuel consumption. In 2004, vehicles contributed 145 megatonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere -- a 36 per cent increase since 1990.

Even producing oil and gas generates greenhouse gases, and as oil becomes harder to find, it becomes more difficult to produce -- a barrel of oil from Alber[t]a's tar sands results in three times the greenhouse gas emissions of a conventional barrel.

Is oil running out?

A recent estimate said the world has 1,371 billion barrels of oil in known reserves -- yet we're using 30.5 billion barrels a year. Since the resource is finite and we keep using it, oil production must eventually reach a peak and start to fall off. The same goes for natural gas.

Sources: IPCC, Pew Center, New Scientist, governments of Canada and Alberta, Canadian Centre for Energy Information and others.

From the "Ideas," "Faith and Ethics" section of the Toronto Star, dated Saturday, October , 2007, here is an article by Stephen Scharper:

Ecology

FAITHS MAY HOLD THE KEY TO GREEN CHINA

Stephen Scharper


Can traditional Chinese religions help contemporary China clean up its environmental mess? A top Chinese official seems to think so.

Pan Yue, deputy director of China's environmental protection agency, suggests an aggressive Western style of development, while powering China to the vaulted but smoggy heights of economic superpower, has come at a deleteriously high ecological price.

In a recent article in The Western Confucian, Pan Yue argues that all traditional Chinese belief systems accent the need for harmony and balance between humanity and nature.

"Whether it is the Confucian idea of (humanity) and nature becoming one, the Daoist view of the Dao reflecting nature, or the Buddhist belief that all living things are equal," Pan Yue says, "Chinese philosophy has helped our culture to survive for thousands of years.

"It can be a powerful weapon in preventing an environmental crisis and building a harmonious society," Pan Yue says ancient philosophical and religious sytems, such as Confucianism and Taoism, amy hold the key to a more sustainable human-earth relationship and help China balance its impressive economic might with its massive ecological plight.

Surprising thoughts from the pen of a highly placed Communist official? Sure. Yet, for Pan Yue such sentiments are not new. In 2001, for example, Pan Yue wrote that Karl Marx's famour dictum, "religion is the opium of the people," had been misinterpreted by atheistic Communist commentators.

Marx, he asserted, was not necessary suggesting that religions was a negative societal force, but rather that religion can serve as a type of antidote to despair. He also suggested that religion might help provide social stability in certain quarters.

Not all of Pan Yue's government colleagues were convinced. But the fact that he has been allowed to continue to advance his unorthodox views is an indication, some observers believe, of an emerging openness to religious views in officially atheistic Beijing.

Pan Yue's environmental turn to religion, while unusual in a Chinese Communist context, actually mirrors a wider turn to world religions by scientists, policy makers, and politicians.

Ever since 32 renowned scientists, including Harvard's E.O. Wilson and the late Carl Sagan, penned "An Open Letter to the Religions Community" in 1990, exhorting faith leaders to take the environment seriously, a growing nexus between secular and religious environmentalists has emerged.

One of the leaders of this development is Yale University's Mary Evelyn Tucker, a Confucian scholar, who helped establish the Forum on Religion and Ecology. Based at Harvard, the forum is a multireligious, international project exploring religious worldviews, texts, and ethical traditions in the hope of dealing constructively with environmental concerns.

The forum, through its conferences and networks, has produced an impressive series on world religious traditions and ecology, and has interfaced with political and spiritual leaders on finding pragmatic solutions to ecological woes.

According to Tucker, "Religions provide a cultural integrity, a spiritual depth and moral force, which secular approaches lack."

Whether Pan Yue succeeds in his quest to have China embrace its religious traditions in order to fashion a more sustainable future, he is not alone in his quest to infuse religious sensibilities into environmental policy debates.

Stephen Scharper teaches religious ethics and ecology at the University of Toronto.  scharper@utoronto.ca

This is one of a number of articles that filled the July 2007 issue of Benefits Canada, "required reading for pension, benefits and investment executives".  The title page of the issue was "Knowing Green", "Climate change creates both risks and opportunities for your pension fund investments. Here's what you need to know."


PENSION FUNDS AROUND THE WORLD HAVE ALREADY JOINED FORCES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE RISK

by Don Bisch

As Canadian pension funds begin taking steps to gauge the financial risks that climate change may pose, institutional investors in some countries have already banded together to put pressure on governments and the companies in which they invest to address those risks.

The United Kingdom, in particular, has been a hotbed of activity. Institutional investors there came together in 2001 after a report commissioned by the University Superannuation Scheme (U.S.S.), Britin's second-largest pension fund, looked at how climate change could impact investments. "That piece of work pointed out there were some risks to a broad range of assets, including companies, including real estate," says David Russell, Group on Climte Change (IIGCC). "If left unaddressed, [those risks] could hit the performance of whole economies and potentially, therefore, impact the returns we require to pay our pensions." (See page 34 for the full interview.)

Now numbering 36 members, including some of Britain's largest pension funds, as well as funds from the Netherlands, France and Switzerland, the group seeks to promote a better understanding of the implications of climate change amongst institution linvestors and to encourage companies in which its members invest to address any material risks and opportunities associated with climate change.

While the U.S.S. report got the ball rolling, it was the introduction of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2005 that drew the attention of many British investors to global warming. "It was the first timeyou actually had a price on carbon. So when you look at a company, there's actually a cost for emitting greenhouse gas emissions," says Stephanie Pfeifer, program director for the IIGCC. "That really brought it back on the radar screens of these fund and asset managers. Climate change legislation can have an impact on investment."

The issue of climate change is now top of mind for the majority of institutional investors, both in the U.K. and in continental Europe. A survey last summer of 39 European pension funds conducted by the IIGCC and European Pensions & Investment News found that 83% agreed or strongly agreed that climate change can have an impact on their investment returns. As well, a third already take into account the risks and opportunities associated with climate change in their investment policies. Another 57% plan to consider climate change issues within the next five years. And almost 80% agreed or strongly agreed that consideration for climate change issues is in line with fiduciary duty.

"In the U.S., you still have the debate about whether [climate change] is really happening or not. We don't really have that anymore," says Pfeifer. "I think most people agree that yes, it is happening, and now we need to find a way of dealing with it."

And when it comes to dealing with climate change, the IIGCC has a lot on the go. Included in its mandate is trustee education. In 2005, the IIGCC, together with the Carbon Trust, commissioned Mercer Investment Consulting to produce A Climate for Change: A trustee's guide to understanding and addressing climate risk. It also held a trustee training session last fall and is planning another.

The group also engages with companies about disclosing their carbon emissions and climate change strategies. Pfeifer says IIGCC is currently developing a framework for disclosure for the electricity and utility sector and will be creating similar frameworks for other sectors shortly. "We're looking for what sort of disclosure is actually relevant for sell-side analysts," she says. "Because some of the ways companies disclose the numbers aren't comparable or consistent or easy to use in financial models, so we're looking at how to improve that."

But where the group is having the most impact is on the public policy front, says Rory Sullivan, head of investor responsibility at Insight Investment, a member of the IIGCC and one of the U.K.'s largest asset managers with approximately $200 billion under management.

"As an individual investor, if we thinkwe need long-term climate change targets, it doesn't carry a lot of weight," says Sullivan. "But [with the] IIGCC, where there's a group of

Here is the tip of the day from The Daily Green, www.dailygreen.com , about organic beer:

Tip of the Day

GET THE ORGANIC BUZZ

Put enough people together in a backyard with a hot grill on a sunny weekend, and there are two things that are all but inevitable: Someone's dog will steal the Frisbee, and you will end up running out for more beer. This year, take a single trip and stock up ahead of time on organic beer.

Here are two good reasons: It's good for the environment, and organic beer represents the latest wave of the craft brewery movement. In other words, beer lovers will love the taste.

The national organic scene grew out of the microbrewery craze and has only picked up steam since its birth about a decade ago. From 2004 to 2005, sales increased 40 percent to $19 million, and by all appearances sales have continued to increase. At least 40 brewers will participate in this year's North American Organic Brewers Festival, billed as the largest organic beer festival the world has ever seen.

Several brands with certified organic labels are distributed nationally, including Wolaver's, Butte Creek Brewing Co., Eel River Brewing Co. and Goose Island Brewery. The nation's big beer companies have also recently gone organic -- causing some controversy in the organic brew community -- with their Green Valley Brewing Co. and Crooked Creek Brewing Co. (Anheuser-Busch) and Henry Weinhard's Organic Amber (Miller) labels.

Many hop growers, particularly since the 1997 outbreak of the downy mildew fungus, have relied on the use of the fungicides to maintain their crops. Hops are also typically grown with heavy use of chemical fertilizer. With 77 percent of the country's hop crop grown in the Yakima Valley in Washington, one of the watersheds important for endangered steelhead, any reduction in fertilizer and pesticide runoff can't be a bad thing for wild Pacific salmon.

Before you run to the beer distributor, don't forget to check first with your local brewery (if you have one), because as we all know organic is one thing, local is another. Cutting down on beer miles is part of reducing your food miles.

And if you can serve beer that  is both organic and local? Sit back, and pour yourself another. You deserve it.

I was ecstatic for Al Gore and the IPCC in winning the shared Nobel Prize. It is great news for anyone concerned about climate change. 

Saturday's Toronto Star, Oct. 13, p. AA6, had the following editorial:


GORE WORTHY OF HONOUR

No one would have been surprised to see the United Nations' Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change win a Nobel prize for science. After all, over the past two decades, the panel of top scientists from more than 100 countries has confirmed with steadily increasing certainty the scale of global warming.

But yesterday the panel was awarded the Nobel prize for peace, jointly with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

The peace prize was the appropriate prize because as Gore said in his reaction to the announcement, "We face a true planetary emergency. . . It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

And no one has done more to raise that consciousness than Gore. He has worked tirelessly since making his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, to publicize the threat of global warming and the supporting body of evidence produced by the UN panel.

As the Nobel committee put it in its citation of Gore, "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

The committee skipped over a Canadian nominee for the prize, Inuit leader Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who was thrilled her nomination drew attention to the impact climate change is having in the Arctic.

While Gore and the UN panel can be proud of their award, the greatest reward they could receive for their efforts is for people everywhere to demand that their politicians give the issue all the attention it deserves. Nowhere is that more important than in the United States.

But that seems to be changing, thanks to Gore. With polls showing a majority of Americans now in favour of government action to prevent a calamitous rise in temperatures, Janet Larsen, research director at the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, says there is a good chance that voters will "not elect anyone to office who does not . . . make a firm commitment to do what we need to do to stop global warming."

The Nobel prize is confirmation that Gore and the panel have done their job. Now governments everywhere must start to do theirs."

What a great announcement for climate change activists and anyone else who cares about the environment and what an inspiration to everyone else to do their own part to help stop global warming. 

This article is from the Monday, September 17, 2007, issue of the Toronto Star, "Section B", p. B1.
 
Clean Break

MISSED ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES
Ontario says it is committed to clean alternatives,
so why are they not part of our long-term plans?

Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter

The province is looking for new "transformative energy innovations" that carry a "wow factor" and can make Ontario shine on the world stage.

So says a memo hastily distributed last month by the government-created Ontario Centres of Excellence, which recently received $15 million in public funds earmarked for "low-carbon technologies."

It must be election time.

There's a certain irony to this, because as hungry start-ups across the province were busy putting together five-page project proposal in hopes of getting a slice of that funding, the Ontario Power Authority was putting out a 20-year electricity plan for the province that decided to exclude how alternative approaches to power generation -- such as fuel cells, gasification and pumped storage -- could make meaningful contributions to the grid over the next two decades.

It's fair to ask why the government, so willing to throw $15 million at "transformative" energy technologies, is being guided by a planning authority that's giving short shrift to innovations, many of them Canadian, that can transform our electricity system today.

Yes, the power authority has implemented a standard offer program meant to encourage development of small-scale renewables such as solar, wind, and biomass. Yes, it has awarded long-term contracts to purchase wind power and plans to significantly expand that investment. All very good.

But as Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said last month. "We have to look at every available opportunity." This simply isn't happening.

In the final plan submitted on Aug. 29 to the Ontario Energy Board, the power authority reduced its earlier projection for wind development by 800 megawatts and shifted it over to hydro-electric dams in the north.

It also made clear that it has no plans to go beyond the minimum requirements laid out in a directive from the energy minister, who wants at least 15,700 megawatts of renewable energy supply in place by 2025.

The plan, according to the power authority, "does not seek to exceed the directive's goals for renewable resources. This is because the incremental renewable resource would be large wind projects. These projects would not be cost-effective when compared to the supply resources included in the plan that would be displaced."

This is troubling.

*  First, the large-scale deployment of clean power isn't the exclusive domain of wind, which is but one of many options available.

* Second, the power authority ignores that the cost of renewable technologies is expected to drop considerably over 20 years, and likely much sooner, Much can happen over two decades, if you consider that most of us never heard of the Internet back in 1987.

* Third, the plan makes clear that cost (i.e. investment in nuclear power) trumps the environment after the minister's directive has been met, though it doesn't factor in the true environment costs in its assessment of nuclear.

The power authority says it will review its 20-year plan in three years and is open to considering new approaches at that time. And in talking with officials there, a sincere attempt is being made to be flexible. But is this realistic?

We all know that the further you go down a path of big-build nuclear, the harder it is to change course. And once you've accepted your course, the search for alternatives, more often than not, loses momentum.

For this reason, it's prudent to factor in the alternatives today and plan accordingly.

Last week I bought, for the first time a can of environmently more friendly paint.  I bought it from Rona, which is a Canadian lumber, hardware, etc., store (a smaller version of Home Depot).  It was twice as much as other paint, but $10 dollars off the day I bought it, making it more reasonable.

Although I took one explanation sheet about the paint at the store, I have no idea where it is right now so here is some information on the paint from SICO's website.

http://www.sico.ca/en/Produits_Environnement.asp

In addition to explaining about the paint, it also has some other green tips, including where the paint remainders should go:

Protecting the environment is one of the most important factors affecting the future of the planet. Most people are now aware of the necessity of preserving and protecting nature in order to ensure our well-being and that of our children. Pollution, especially that related to the over-consumption of certain forms of energy and the overuse of raw materials, has reached alarming levels due to our current lifestyle. That is why at Sico, we are constantly striving to minimize the consequences of our activities. At Sico, the quality of our products and the protection of the environment go hand in hand. VOC or Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs are organic solvents contained in paint. Growing concerns about VOCs are mainly related to emission problems. As paint dries after application, its solvents are released into the atmosphere. Since VOCs are precursors for smog (gas mixture formed in the lower atmosphere when UV rays interact with certain pollutants), they have been identified as pollutants. You should know, however, that all Sico latex products comply with environment protection standards. Such standards aim at reducing VOC emissions in order to improve the quality of air, thereby reducing potential negative effects on our health. Make the right choice by looking for our containers bearing the seal MEETS CANADIAN VOC STANDARDS.   By selecting a VOC-free paint, you will be making a more responsible choice. Incidentally, the Sico Design product line made up of Cashmere, Chamois, and Shantung was recently entirely reformulated to contain zero VOCs, to help improve the quality of air. This product line also proudly carries the Green Seal logo, an independent non-profit organization that ensures that a product meets rigorous, science-based environmental leadership standards. You may visit the Green Seal site at www.greenseal.org. "Green" Tips Do not buy more paint than you need for your projects. Use our paint calculator; it is there to help you! Prefer latex paint over alkyd paint. Before cleaning your paint brushes, use a paint brush and roller cleaner. This tool has a serrated edge to remove excess paint from brushes, and a concave edge for rollers. This will help you recover quite a bit of paint which you can pour back into its container. Cleaning your brushes will then require much less water. To clean your latex-covered paint brushes, finish cleaning them in a container of water instead of under the tap. If you need to use an alkyd paint, let the solvent used to clean your brushes clarify. Paint particles will go to the bottom, allowing you to filter the solvent and use it later. Do not pour leftover paint on the ground or down household or storm drains because it could contaminate a nearby stream or the water table. If your paint container is nearly empty, let the leftover paint dry completely in the open container before throwing it out. Give leftover paint to someone who could use it: a neighbour or friend, a recreational service or a non-profit organization. However, make sure the leftover paint is in its original container and that the label is intact.. Where you should take your paint remains To quickly find the closest collection point for leftover paint, please visit www.eco-peinture.ca if you are a Québec resident. This site also contains information on recovery and recycling of discarded paint and paint containers. If you live elsewhere in Canada, visit instead www.productcare.org and click on the province of your choice.

The company | Professionals | Site map | Contact-us | Our retailers | Français It's all about colour | The advice zone | Our products | More good ideas! ©2007 - Sico Inc.

IPCC expresses surprise and gratitude at announcement of Nobel Peace Prize Geneva, 12 October 2007 - The awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (jointly with former US Vice-President Al Gore) is a remarkable testament to the dedication and commitment of the thousands of experts and participants who have produced the Panel's rigorous and comprehensive assessments of climate change research. "This is an honour that goes to all the scientists and authors who have contributed to the work of the IPCC, which alone has resulted in enormous prestige for this organization and the remarkable effectiveness of the message that it contains" - says Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the IPCC. "It is the most significant recognition that the IPCC has received for providing policymakers with objective and balanced information about the causes and impacts of climate change and possible response measures" - says Renate Christ, the Secretary of the IPCC. Hundreds of authors from all regions of the planet have devoted an incredible amount of time and labour to writing and reviewing the reports. None of them has been paid for their time. The IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed scientific and technical literature. The IPCC reports are written by teams of authors from all over the world who are recognized experts in their field. They represent relevant disciplines as well as differing scientific perspectives. This global coverage of expertise, the interdisciplinary nature of the IPCC team, and the transparency of the process, constitute the Panel's strongest assets. "The IPCC's doors are open to every expert who is qualified and willing to make a contribution as author or reviewer" says Renate Christ. "This voluntary network of thousands of scientists and experts is what makes the IPCC truly unique." The number of experts involved in the IPCC process has expanded considerably since the Panel was created in 1988. The procedures governing the writing and approval process have also become increasingly rigorous and transparent. This has been the key to enabling the IPCC to connect the very different cultures and requirements of the scientific and political worlds. "The IPCC's strength lies in the processes and procedures that it follows. Most important is its ability of carrying out rigorous scientific assessment, which undergoes the scrutiny of government representatives and therefore is accepted by governments. There is no other body in the world that is able to meet these twin objectives simultaneously," says Mr. Rajendra Pachauri. The IPCC was created almost 20 years ago to response to growing concern about the risk of anthropogenic climate change. The General Assembly of the United Nations asked the two UN bodies most engaged in the issue, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, to set up this Panel to provide balanced, objective policy advice. The First Assessment Report of 1990 was submitted to the UN General Assembly, which responded by formally recognizing that climate change required global action and launched the negotiations that led to the adoption of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In one exact month from now, the IPCC Plenary will meet in Valencia, Spain, to adopt the fourth and final volume of its "Climate Change 2007" assessment report. This short and extremely readable "Synthesis Report", explicitly targeted to policymakers, represents the final step in integrating and presenting the enormous amounts of scientific information contained in the three volumes released earlier this year. The Synthesis Report will be launched on 17 November.   Mr. Rajendra Pachauri of India was elected Chairman of the IPCC in 2002. He succeeded Robert Watson of the UK (1997 - 2002) and Bert Bolin of Sweden (1988 - 1997). During his Chairmanship, Mr. Pachauri, regarded as an effective team builder, has emphasized the world-wide coverage and interdisciplinary nature of the IPCC work. For further information, contact the IPCC Secretariat at IPCC-Sec@wmo.int

 

I sponsor four boys in Armenia through World Vision, and as it is getting closer to Christmas, I would use $100 per each boy to fund sports equipment and books for each child's community.

I am not exactly sure how the rest would be spent , probably on some of the following:

1.  savings
2.  credit card bill
3.  private volleyball lessons for my two teenage sons
4.  paint, lighting fixtures or blinds/curtains for new cottage
5.  programmable thermostat for house and cottage
6.  energy audit
7.  towards more energy efficient stove at cottage
8.  donation to Salvation Army band at Christmas (my mother's uncles, grandfather played in Salvation Army bands and their religion was also listed as Salvation Army)

Canada has basically gone to the Dark Side in sticking with the other major polluting countries in the world who have not signed Kyoto (Canada signed it and did nothing--just as bad) rather than putting Kyoto targets in place.  Before the recent October election, John Baird, the Minister of the Environment , was reduced to responding to an editorial stating the government was only giving lip service (accurate) to the issue of climate change.

You'll notice that there is no mention at all of pre-2012 standards or the Kyoto protocol or the legislation that was passed in the government by the non-conservative members requiring the government to meet the Kyoto targets.  He is correct, however, about the shameful inaction by the Liberals after having signed Kyoto.  Perhaps Liberals were protecting the Alberta oil sands (energy intensive, "dirty" energy source) just like the Conservatives are doing now.

From the Friday, September 28, 2007, Toronto Star, "Letters>Comment" section of the newspaper, page AA7, here is Minister Baird's rebuttal:


CANADA IS ON TRACK TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENT

Re PM's lip service on climate threat
      Editorial, Sept. 26

In two years, the federal Conservative government has done more good for the environment that our Liberal predecessors managed in 13 years. Our plan to reduce Canadaa's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and by 60 to 70 per cent by 2050 is tougher than any measures ever introduced here.

With respect to climate change, we believe Canada needs a post-2012 protocol that contains binding targets for all of the world's major emitters.

As for our membership in the Asia-Pacific Partnership, Canada will continue to work within the United Nations process. Joining the partnership will complement the work by allowing Canada to be a bridge between our European Union partners and large polluters who are Asia-Pacific members.

John Baird, Minister of the Environment,
Ottawa

Here are some things you can do in your kitchen, to stop global warming. These suggestions are from the British Channel 4 website:  http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/E/environment/help_1.html .

Tips for being green in the kitchen

Quick tips

Don't overfill the kettle
If you're making tea for one, only use that amount of water. If you're making tea for two, use that amount and so on. Overfilling the kettle wastes needless energy.

Don't waste food
This might seem like an obvious point, but a survey by Braun found that YUBBIES (Young Urban Bin Baggers) waste £865m of food every year by letting it go stale or out of date. One in six people wastes more than 10% of their average £42 weekly groceries shopping. Salad and fresh vegetables are the most likely items to be thrown away.

Eat your leftovers
The Braun survey also showed that people in the UK no longer keep leftover food for another meal, preferring to bin it or feed it to the dog instead.

Let food cool down before refrigerating it
This saves energy. Also, only keep the fridge door open for as long as you need to.

Make your own lunch
Not only will this save you a lot of money, but also you'll use less packaging than a sandwich shop.

Only wash full loads in the washing machine
Only ever wash full loads of clothes instead of half loads to save water and energy.

Replace ordinary light bulbs with energy efficient ones
They might cost more initially, but they last much longer and are significantly better for the environment.

Recycle
As well as buying recycled products, get in touch with your local authority to find out about recycling schemes in your area. Pretty soon you'll be required to sort your rubbish anyway, so why not start now?

Re-use items
Bottles, carrier bags and refillable containers don't have to be thrown away - they can all be reused. Many supermarkets now offer 'bags for life'.

Think twice before you put something in the bin
Can it be reused or recycled?

Turn the lights off when you leave a room
This is one of the easiest things anyone can do - and the difference it can make to the amount of energy we consume is considerable.

Use refill packs
Most washing powders, liquids, fabric softeners and dishwasher products have refill packs rather than buying the large plastic bottle over and over again.

More tips

Buy less processed foods
Processed foods are often over-packaged, so try buying more fresh items.

Buy locally produced food where possible
Locally-produced foods don't have to be transported, making them a considerably more environmentally-friendly option by far.

Buy products with less packaging
Less packaging usually means less waste - although how environmentally friendly a product is also depends on how the product was packaged and transported originally.

Don't pour oil, fats and harmful chemicals down the sink or toilet
Inside drains lead to a septic tank or sewer system, where water will be treated. But some chemicals and substances won't be broken down and will still end up back in the sea or rivers. Inside drains and toilets should not be used to dispose of hazardous waste or chemicals - go to your local dump where they will be disposed of properly.

Dispose of your fridge properly
Many old fridges contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which contribute to the hole in the ozone layer. If you need to dispose on an old fridge, contact your local authority.

Grow fresh food in your garden
Like locally-produced foods and products, there is no transport involved here, so you can't get much greener.

Repair damaged goods
Half of electrical goods that go to the dump only need minor repairs - and it will probably cost you less than buying a replacement.

Reuse plastic and glass bottles and jars or take them to a recycling bank
Containers like bottles and jars don't always have to be thrown away or recycled - you can reuse them, too.

Separate your rubbish
Recycling is going to become a bigger part of all of our lives, so why not start separating your rubbish for recycling now? Contact your local authority to find out when your nearest recycling point is - there might even be a local collection service available.

Shop environmentally
Books like The Good Shopping Guide list the most eco-friendly products and brands to buy.

Use and buy energy efficient appliances
Products like fridges and washing machines have energy labels on. Categories 'A' and 'B' are the most energy efficient and use less water. Anything rated below rating 'D' is being phased out and should be avoided - it will cost you more and will use more electricity.

Use low temperatures on your washing machine
This saves water and energy.

Here is a poem by Galway Kinnell, born 1927, in an anthology of poety called: A Book of Luminous Things: An International Anthology of Poetry, edited and with an introduction by Czeslaw Milosz, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, published by Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1996.


DAYBREAK

On the tidal mud, just before sunset,

dozens of starfishes

were creeping. It was

as though the mud were a sky

and enormous, imperfect stars

moved across it slowly

as the actual stars cross heaven.

All at once they stopped,

and as if they had simply

increased their receptivity

to gravity they sank down

into the mud; they faded down

into it and lay still; and by the time

pink of sunset broke across them

they were as invisible

as the true stars at daybreak.

From the same book I mentioned in the previous post, that is, A Book of Luminous Things, edited by the Nobel Prizer winner for literature, Czeslaw Milosz, here is a poem by Walt Whitman, 1819-1892:

I AM THE POET

I am the poet of reality

I say the earth is not an echo

Nor man an apparition;

But that all the things seen are real,

The witness and albic dawn of things equally real

I have split the earth and the hard coal and rocks and the solid bed

    of the sea

And went down to reconnoitre there a long time,

And bring back a report,

And I understand that those are positive and dense every one

And that what they seem to the child they are

[And that the world is not a joke,

Nor any part of it a sham].

This article can be found on  page 5 of a newsletter put out  by the David Suzuki Foundation. The report can bedownloaded from the Foundation's website: www.davidsuzuki.orgpublications .


New Report Says Children Under Six Most At Risk

PESTICIDE POISONING

by Dominic Ali

Those herbicidesand insecticides in your tool shed and garages seem harmless enough, even after we spray them in the summer to kill bugs and weeds. But these chemicals are actually sinister villains.

A new report by the David Suzuki Foundation, "Northern Exposure: Acute Pesticide Poisonings in Canada", reveals the surprisingly high numbers of pesticide poisonings in Canada, especially among children under age six.

Authored by Canadian environmental policy expert David Boyd, the report garnered national headlines when it was released. It is the sixth report in a series showing how environmental policies should be strengthened to protect the health of all Canadians.

In an earlier report, "The Food We Eat", Boyd found that approximately 1,000 commercial pesticides products for sale in Canada can't be sold in other countries because of health and environmental concerns. "To make matters worse," Boyd writes in "Northern Exposure", negotiations are underway to further weaken pesticide residue limis in order to harmonize Canadian standards with American standards.

Mr. Boyd also foundthat although children under age six represent only 6.4 of the total Canadian population, they experience as much as 46.5 per cent of acute pesticide poisonings. "Thousands of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, our children, are being needlessly poisoned. If that's not a wake-up call about the dangers of pesticides, I don't know what is," Mr. Boyd says.

Anti-pesticide bylaws have been passed in more than 125 municipalities across Canada because of the health risks involved. But, as Mr. Boyd points out, more could be done to protect Canadians from unintentional pesticide poisoning.

Aside from the health costs of pesticide poisonings, there are also economic costs as well. In 1995, Health Canada estimated that four per cent of reporting poisonings of Canadian children each year were due to accidental pesticide exposure. "Northern Exposure" estimates that these acute pesticide poisonings cost roughly $16 million each year.

So what can the government do to prevent future pesticide poisonings? Quite a lot, actually. For starters, different levels of government could enact legislation requiring all pesticide products in Canada to be sold in child-resistant containers, ban pesticides for cosmetic purposes, and increase funding to Canada's poison-control centres.

This report was funded by the Lefebvre Charibable Foundation and can be downloaded from www.davidsuzuki.org.publications .

Here is an article from Rolling Stone about James Lovelock, a sometimes controversial inventor and scientist, whose Gaia hypothesis pops up in climate change articles and books on a regular basis.

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock

Rollingstone.com

The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock

One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible - and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century

Jeff Goodell

Posted Oct 17, 2007 2:20 PM

At the age of eighty-eight, after four children and a long and respected career as one of the twentieth century's most influential scientists, James Lovelock has come to an unsettling conclusion: The human race is doomed. "I wish I could be more hopeful," he tells me one sunny morning as we walk through a park in Oslo, where he is giving a talk at a university. Lovelock is a small man, unfailingly polite, with white hair and round, owlish glasses. His step is jaunty, his mind lively, his manner anything but gloomy. In fact, the coming of the Four Horsemen -- war, famine, pestilence and death -- seems to perk him up. "It will be a dark time," Lovelock admits. "But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."

In Lovelock's view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. "The Chinese have nowhere to go but up into Siberia," Lovelock says. "How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia and China is probably inevitable." With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.

By the end of the century, according to Lovelock, global warming will cause temperate zones like North America and Europe to heat up by fourteen degrees Fahrenheit, nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sanctioned body that includes the world's top scientists. "Our future," Lovelock writes, "is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail." And switching to energy-efficient light bulbs won't save us. To Lovelock, cutting greenhouse-gas pollution won't make much difference at this point, and much of what passes for sustainable development is little more than a scam to profit off disaster. "Green," he tells me, only half-joking, "is the color of mold and corruption."
 

If such predictions were coming from anyone else, you would laugh them off as the ravings of an old man projecting his own impending death onto the world around him. But Lovelock is not so easily dismissed. As an inventor, he created a device that helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer and jump-start the environmental movement in the 1970s. And as a scientist, he introduced the revolutionary theory known as Gaia -- the idea that our entire planet is a kind of superorganism that is, in a sense, "alive." Once dismissed as New Age quackery, Lovelock's vision of a self-regulating Earth now underlies virtually all climate science. Lynn Margulis, a pioneering biologist at the University of Massachusetts, calls him "one of the most innovative and mischievous scientific minds of our time." Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur, credits Lovelock with inspiring him to pledge billions of dollars to fight global warming. "Jim is a brilliant scientist who has been right about many things in the past," Branson says. "If he's feeling gloomy about the future, it's important for mankind to pay attention."

Lovelock knows that predicting the end of civilization is not an exact science. "I could be wrong about all this," he admits as we stroll around the park in Norway. "The trouble is, all those well-intentioned scientists who are arguing that we're not in any imminent danger are basing their arguments on computer models. I'm basing mine on what's actually happening."

When you approach Lovelock's house in Devon, a rural area in southwestern England, the sign on the metal gate reads:

COOMBE MILL EXPERIMENTAL STATION

SITE OF NEW NATURAL HABITAT
 

PLEASE DO NOT TRESPASS OR DISTURB
 

A few hundred yards down a narrow lane, beside the site of an old mill, is a white, slate-roofed cottage where Lovelock lives with his second wife, Sandy, an American, and his youngest son, John, who is fifty-one and mildly disabled. It's a fairy-tale setting, surrounded by thirty-five wooded acres -- no vegetable garden, no manicured rosebushes. "I detest all that," Lovelock tells me. Partly hidden in the woods is a life-size statue of Gaia, the Greek goddess of the Earth, whom Lovelock named his groundbreaking theory after.

Most scientists toil at the margins of human knowledge, adding incrementally to our understanding of the world. Lovelock is one of the few living scientists whose ideas have touched off not only a scientific revolution but a spiritual one as well. "Future historians of science will see Lovelock as a man who inspired a Copernican shift in how we see ourselves in the world," says Tim Lenton, a climate researcher at the University of East Anglia, in England. Before Lovelock came along, the Earth was seen as little more than a cozy rock drifting around the sun. According to the accepted wisdom, life evolved here because the conditions were right -- not too hot, not too cold, plenty of water. Somehow bacteria grew into multicelled organisms, fish crawled out of the sea, and before long, Britney Spears arrived.

In the 1970s, Lovelock upended all this with a simple question: Why is the Earth different from Mars and Venus, where the atmosphere is toxic to life? In a flash of insight, Lovelock understood that our atmosphere was created not by random geological events but by the cumulative effusion of everything that has ever breathed, grown and decayed. Our air "is not merely a biological product," Lovelock wrote, "but more probably a biological construction: not living, but like a cat's fur, a bird's feathers or the paper of a wasp's nest, an extension of a living system designed to maintain a chosen environment." According to Gaia theory, life is not just a passenger on Earth but an active participant, helping to create the very conditions that sustain it. It's a beautiful idea --life begets life. It was also right in tune with the post-flower-child mood of the Seventies. Lovelock was quickly adopted as a spiritual guru, the man who killed God and put the planet at the center of New Age religious experience.

Lovelock is not an alarmist by nature. In his view, the dangers of nuclear power are grossly overstated. Ditto mercury emissions in the atmosphere, genetic engineering of food and the loss of biodiversity on the planet. The greatest mistake in his career, in fact, was not claiming that the sky was falling but failing to recognize that it was. In 1973, after being the first to discover that industrial chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons had polluted the atmosphere, Lovelock declared that the buildup of CFCs posed "no conceivable hazard." As it turned out, CFCs weren't toxic to breathe, but they were eating a hole in the ozone. Lovelock quickly revised his view, calling it "one of my greatest blunders," but the mistake may have cost him a share in a Nobel Prize.

At first, Lovelock didn't view global warming as an urgent threat to the planet. "Gaia is a tough bitch," he often said, borrowing a phrase coined by a colleague. But a few years ago, alarmed by rapidly melting ice in the Arctic and other climate-related changes, Lovelock became convinced that Gaia's autopilot system -- the giant, inexpressibly subtle network of positive and negative feedbacks that keeps the Earth's climate in balance -- is seriously out of whack, derailed by pollution and deforestation. Lovelock believes the planet itself will eventually recover its equilibrium, even if it takes millions of years. What's at stake, he says, is civilization.

"You could quite seriously look at climate change as a response of the system intended to get rid of an irritating species: us humans," Lovelock tells me in the small office he has created in his cottage. "Or at least cut them back to size."

Lovelock's cottage in the woods is a world away from South London, where he grew up with coal soot in his lungs, coughing and pale and working-class. His mother was an early feminist; his father grew up so desperately hungry that he spent six months in prison when he was fourteen for poaching a rabbit from a local squire's estate. Shortly after Lovelock was born, his parents passed him off to his grandmother to raise. "They were too poor and too busy to raise a child," he explains. In school, he was a lousy student, mildly dyslexic, more interested in pranks than homework. But he loved books, especially the science fiction of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.

To escape the grime of urban life, Lovelock's father often took him on long walks in the countryside, where he caught trout by hand from the streams and gorged on blueberries. The freedom and romance Lovelock felt on these jaunts had a transformative effect on him. "It's where I first saw the face of Gaia," he says now.

By the time Lovelock hit puberty, he knew he wanted to be a scientist. His first love was physics. But his dyslexia made complex math difficult, so he opted instead for chemistry, enrolling at the University of London. A year later, when the Nazis invaded Poland, Lovelock converted to Quakerism and soon became a conscientious objector. In his written statement, he explained why he refused to fight: "War is evil."

Lovelock took a job at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, where one of his first assignments was to develop new ways to stop the spread of infectious diseases. He spent months in underground bomb shelters studying how viruses are transmitted -- and shagging nurses in first-aid stations while Nazi bombs fell overhead. "It was a hard, desperate time," he says. "But it was exciting! It's terribly ironic, but war does make one feel alive."
 

As a result of his research in the bomb shelters, Lovelock ended up inventing the first aerosol disinfectant. A few years later, as a pioneer in the field of cryogenics, he became the first to understand how cellular structures respond to extreme cold, developing a means to freeze and thaw animal sperm -- a method still in use today. "Thanks to Lovelock," says biologist Lynn Margulis, "they don't have to send the entire bull to Australia."

But Lovelock's most important invention was the Electron Capture Detector, or ECD. In 1957, working at his kitchen table, Lovelock hacked together a device to measure minute concentrations of pesticides and other gases in the air. The instrument fit into the palm of his hand and was so exquisitely sensitive that if you dumped a bottle of some rare chemical on a blanket in Japan and let it evaporate, the ECD would be able to detect it a week later in England. The device was eventually redesigned by Hewlett-Packard: If Lovelock had retained the patent, he would have been a rich man. "Jim has never cared much for money," says Armand Neukermans, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and old friend of Lovelock, "except to buy himself freedom as an independent scientist."

As it turned out, Lovelock's invention roughly coincided with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which alerted the world to the dangers of pesticides like DDT. By the time her book appeared, scientists were already using the ECD to measure pesticide residue in the fat of Antarctic penguins and in the milk of nursing mothers in Finland, giving hard evidence to Carson's claims that chemicals were impacting the environment on a global scale. "If it hadn't been for my ECD," Lovelock says, "I think critics in the industry would have dismissed the whole thing as wet chemistry -- 'Oh, you can't measure this stuff accurately, can't extrapolate.' And they would have been right."

A decade later, Lovelock made an even more important discovery. In the late 1960s, while staying at an isolated vacation house in Ireland, he took a random sample of the haze that drifted into the area and found it laced with chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are man-made compounds used as a refrigerant and as a propellant in aerosol cans -- a sure sign of man-made pollution. If CFCs are in remote Ireland, Lovelock wondered, where else might they be? Hitching a ride on a research vessel for a six-month voyage to Antarctica, he used a jury-rigged ECD to detect the buildup of CFCs in the atmosphere. But Lovelock failed to grasp the danger that they posed; two other scientists won the Nobel Prize for correctly hypothesizing that CFCs would burn a hole in the stratosphere, allowing dangerous levels of ultraviolet light to reach the Earth. As a result, CFCs were banned. "If Lovelock hadn't detected those CFCs," says Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, "we'd all be living under the ocean in snorkels and fins to escape that poisonous sun."

If you type "gaia" and "religion" into Google, you'll get 2,360,000 hits -- Wiccans, spiritual travelers, massage therapists and sexual healers, all inspired by Lovelock's vision of the planet. Ask him about pagan cults, though, and Lovelock grimaces -- he has no interest in soft-headed spirituality or organized religion, especially when it puts human existence above all else. At Oxford, he once stood up and admonished Mother Teresa for urging an audience to take care of the poor and "leave God to take care of the Earth." As Lovelock explained to her, "If we as people do not respect and take care of the Earth, we can be sure that the Earth, in the role of Gaia, will take care of us and, if necessary, eliminate us."

Lovelock came up with the Gaia theory during a rough time in his life. In 1961, he was forty-one and working at a research center in London. It was a good job, decent pay, plenty of freedom, but he was bored. He had four kids at home, including John, who was born with a birth defect that left him brain-damaged. In addition, Lovelock's mother -- cranky, demanding, aged -- was driving him nuts. He smoked, he drank. Today, we'd call it a midlife crisis.

One day, a letter from NASA arrived in Lovelock's mailbox, inviting him to join a group of scientists who were about to explore the moon. He had never heard of the space agency -- but within a few months he had dumped his job, packed up the family and moved to America to join the space race. Before long, though, he concluded that, scientifically speaking, the moon wasn't a very interesting place. The real excitement was Mars. "With the moon, the question was, is it safe for astronauts to walk on the surface?" Lovelock recalls. "With Mars, the question was, is there life there?"

Lovelock's colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, struggled to design instruments to test for life on the Martian surface. Lovelock, as usual, took a different approach. Instead of using a probe to dig up soil and look for bacteria, he thought, why not analyze the chemical composition of the Martian atmosphere? If life were present, he reasoned, the organisms would be obliged to use up raw materials in the atmosphere (such as oxygen) and dump waste products (like methane), just as life on Earth does. Even if the materials consumed and discharged were different, the chemical imbalance would be relatively simple to detect. Sure enough, when Lovelock and his colleagues finally got an analysis of Mars, they discovered that the atmosphere was close to chemical equilibrium -- suggesting that there had been no life on the planet.

But if life creates the atmosphere, Lovelock reasoned, it must also, in some sense, be regulating it. He knew, for example, that the sun is now about twenty-five percent hotter than when life began. What was modulating the surface temperature of the Earth, keeping it hospitable? Life itself, Lovelock concluded. When the Earth heats up, plants draw down levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases; as it cools, the levels of those gases rise, warming the planet. Thus, the idea of the Earth as superorganism was born.

The idea was not entirely new: Leonardo da Vinci believed pretty much the same thing in the sixteenth century. But Lovelock was the first to assemble all the existing thinking into a new vision of the planet. He soon quit NASA and moved back to England, where his neighbor William Golding, author of Lord of the Flies, suggested that he name his theory after Gaia, to capture the popular imagination. When established scientific journals refused to touch his ideas, Lovelock put out a book called Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. "The Gaia hypothesis," he wrote, "is for those who like to walk or simply stand and stare, to wonder about the Earth and the life it bears and to speculate about the consequences of our own presence here." Gaia, he added, offers an alternative to the "depressing picture of our planet as a demented spaceship, forever traveling driverless and purposeless around an inner circle of the sun."

Hippies loved it. Darwinists didn't. Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, dismissed Lovelock's book as "pop-ecology literature." British biologist John Maynard Smith went further, calling Gaia "an evil religion." In their view, Lovelock's concept flew in the face of evolutionary logic: If the Earth is an organism, and organisms evolve by natural selection, then that implies that somehow the Earth out-competed other planets. How is that possible? They were also troubled by Lovelock's suggestion that life creates the condition for life, which seems to suggest a predetermined purpose. In the minds of many of his peers, Lovelock was dancing very close to God.

But that was not what Lovelock had in mind. Large systems, in his view, don't need a purpose. To prove it, Lovelock and a colleague devised a simple, elegant computer model called Daisyworld, which used competing fields of daisies to show how organisms evolving under rules of natural selection are part of a self-regulating system. As the model planet heats up, white daisies thrive, reflecting more sunlight; that, in turn, lowers the temperature, which favors black daisies. Working together, the flowers regulate the temperature of the planet. The daisies are not altruistic or conscious -- they simply exist and, by existing, alter their environment.

Daisyworld quieted some of the critics, but the scientific debate over Gaia raged throughout the 1980s. Lovelock continued refining his thoughts despite troubles in his personal life. His first wife, Helen, was in the midst of a slow and painful decline from multiple sclerosis. Lovelock himself had several major surgeries, including the removal of a kidney he damaged in a tractor accident. He supported himself in part as a consultant for MI5, England's top counterintelligence agency, where he developed a method to monitor the movements of KGB spies in London by using an ECD to track their vehicles. To Lovelock, working for the spy agency was the equivalent of writing potboiler novels for a quick paycheck. "It was enjoyable work, and it kept food on the table," he says now.

Among scientists, Lovelock redeemed himself with a second book, The Ages of Gaia, which offered a more rigorous exploration of the biological and geophysical feedback mechanisms that keep the Earth's atmosphere suitable for life. Plankton in the oceans, for example, help cool the planet by giving off dimethyl sulfide, a chemical that seeds the formation of clouds, which in turn reflect the sun's heat back into space. "In the 1970s, plenty of us thought Gaia was nonsense," says Wally Broecker, a paleoclimatologist at Columbia University. "But Lovelock got everyone thinking more seriously about the dynamic nature of the planet." Of course, scientists like Broecker rarely used the word "Gaia." They prefer the phrase "Earth system science," which views the world, according to one treatise, as "a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human components." In other words, Gaia in a lab coat.

Gaia offers a hopeful vision of how the world works. After all, if the Earth is more than just a rock drifting around the sun, if it's a superorganism that can evolve, that means -- to put it in a way that will piss off biology majors and neo-Darwinists everywhere -- there is a certain amount of forgiveness built into our world.

For Lovelock, this is a comforting idea. Consider his little spread in Devon. When he bought the place thirty years ago, it was surrounded by fields shorn by a thousand years of sheep-grazing. But to Lovelock, open land reeks of human interference with Gaia. So he set out to restore his thirty-five acres to its more natural character. After consulting with a forester, he planted 20,000 trees -- alders, oaks, pines. Unfortunately, he planted many of them too close together, and in rows. The trees are about forty feet tall now, but rather than feeling "natural," parts of his land have the look of a badly managed forestry project. "I botched it," Lovelock says with a grin as we hike through the woods. "But in the long run, Gaia will take care of it."

Until recently, Lovelock thought that global warming would be just like his half-assed forest -- something the planet would correct for. Then, in 2004, Lovelock's friend Richard Betts, a researcher at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change -- England's top climate institute -- invited him to stop by and talk with the scientists there. Lovelock went from meeting to meeting, hearing the latest data about melting ice at the poles, shrinking rain forests, the carbon cycle in the oceans. "It was terrifying," he recalls. "We were shown five separate scenes of positive feedback in regional climates -- polar, glacial, boreal forest, tropical forest and oceans -- but no one seemed to be working on whole-planet consequences." Equally chilling, he says, was the tone in which the scientists talked about the changes they were witnessing, "as if they were discussing some distant planet or a model universe, instead of the place where we all live."

As Lovelock was driving home that evening, it hit him. The resiliency of the system was gone. The forgiveness had been used up. "The whole system," he decided, "is in failure mode." A few weeks later, he began work on his latest and gloomiest book, The Revenge of Gaia, which was published in the U.S. in 2006.

In Lovelock's view, the flaws in computer climate models are painfully apparent. Take the uncertainty around projected sea levels: The IPCC, the U.N. panel on climate change, estimates that global warming will cause Earth's average temperature to rise as much as 11.5 degrees by 2100. This will cause inland glaciers to melt and seas to expand, triggering a maximum sea level rise of only twenty-three inches. Greenland, according to the IPCC's models, will take 1,000 years to melt.

But evidence from the real world suggests that the IPCC is far too conservative. For one thing, scientists know from the geological record that 3 million years ago, when temperatures increased to five degrees above today's level, the seas rose not by twenty-three inches but by more than eighty feet. What's more, recent satellite measurements indicate that Arctic ice is melting so rapidly that the region could be ice-free by 2030. "Modelers don't have the foggiest idea about the dynamics of melting ice sheets," scoffs Lovelock.
 

It's not just ice that throws off the climate models. Cloud physics are notoriously difficult to get right, and feedbacks from the biosphere, such as deforestation and melting tundra, are rarely factored in. "Computer models are not crystal balls," argues Ken Caldeira, a climate modeler at Stanford University whose career has been deeply influenced by Lovelock's ideas. "By observing the past, you make informed judgments about the future. Computer models are just a way to codify that accumulated knowledge into automated educated bets."

Here, in its oversimplified essence, is Lovelock's doomsday scenario: Rising heat means more ice melting at the poles, which means more open water and land. That, in turn, increases the heat (ice reflects sunlight; open land and water absorb it), causing more ice to melt. The seas rise. More heat leads to more intense rainfall in some places, droughts in others. The Amazon rain forests and the great northern boreal forests --the belt of pine and spruce that covers Alaska, Canada and Siberia --undergo a growth spurt, then wither away. The permafrost in northern latitudes thaws, releasing methane, a greenhouse gas that is twenty times more potent than CO2 -- and on and on it goes.
 

In a functioning Gaian world, these positive feedbacks would be modulated by negative feedbacks, the largest of which is the Earth's ability to radiate heat into space. But at a certain point, the regulatory system breaks down and the planet's climate makes the jump -- as it has many times in the past -- to a new, hotter state. Not the end of the world, but certainly the end of the world as we know it.

Lovelock's doomsday scenario is dismissed by leading climate researchers, most of whom dispute the idea that there is a single tipping point for the entire planet. "Individual ecosystems may fail or the ice sheets may collapse," says Caldeira, "but the larger system appears to be surprisingly resilient." But let's assume for the moment that Lovelock is right and we are indeed poised above Niagara Falls. Do we just wave as we go over the edge? In Lovelock's view, modest cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions won't help us -- it's too late to stop global warming by swapping our SUVs for hybrids. What about capturing carbon-dioxide pollution from coal plants and pumping it underground? "We can't possibly bury enough to make any difference." Biofuels? "A monumentally stupid idea." Renewables? "Nice, but won't make a dent." To Lovelock, the whole idea of sustainable development is wrongheaded: "We should be thinking about sustainable retreat."

Retreat, in his view, means it's time to start talking about changing where we live and how we get our food; about making plans for the migration of millions of people from low-lying regions like Bangladesh into Europe; about admitting that New Orleans is a goner and moving the people to cities better positioned for the future. Most of all, he says, it's about everybody "absolutely doing their utmost to sustain civilization, so that it doesn't degenerate into Dark Ages, with warlords running things, which is a real danger. We could lose everything that way."

Even Lovelock's friends cringe when he talks like this. "I fear he's overdrawing our despair budget," says Chris Rapley, head of the Science Museum in London, who has worked hard to raise international awareness of global warming. Others are justifiably concerned that Lovelock's views will distract from the rising political momentum for tough restrictions on greenhouse-gas pollution. Broecker, the Columbia paleoclimatologist, calls Lovelock's belief that cutting pollution is futile "dangerous nonsense."

"I wish I could say that wind turbines and solar panels will save us," Lovelock responds. "But I can't. There isn't any kind of solution possible. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet now, not to mention livestock and pets. If you just take the CO2 of everything breathing, it's twenty-five percent of the total --four times as much CO2 as all the airlines in the world. So if you want to improve your carbon footprint, just hold your breath. It's terrifying. We have just exceeded all reasonable bounds in numbers. And from a purely biological view, any species that does that has a crash."

This is not to suggest, however, that Lovelock believes we should just party while the world burns. Quite the opposite. "We need bold action," Lovelock insists. "We have a tremendous amount to do." In his view, we have two choices: We can return to a more primitive lifestyle and live in equilibrium with the planet as hunter-gatherers, or we can sequester ourselves in a very sophisticated, high-tech civilization. "There's no question which path I'd prefer," he says one morning in his cottage, grinning broadly and tapping the keyboard of his computer. "It's really a question of how we organize society -- where we will get our food, water. How we will generate energy."
 

For water, the answer is pretty straightforward: desalination plants, which can turn ocean water into drinking water. Food supply is tougher: Heat and drought will devastate many of today's food-growing regions. It will also push people north, where they will cluster in cities. In these areas, there will be no room for backyard gardens. As a result, Lovelock believes, we will have to synthesize food -- to grow it in vats from tissue cultures of meats and vegetables. It sounds far out and deeply unappetizing, but from a technological standpoint, it wouldn't be hard to do.

A steady supply of electricity will also be vital. Five days after his visit to the Hadley Centre, Lovelock penned a fiery op-ed titled "Nuclear Power Is the Only Green Solution." Lovelock argued that we should "use the small input from renewables sensibly" but that "we have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."

Environmentalists howled in protest, but for anyone who knew Lovelock's past, his embrace of nukes is not surprising. At the age of fourteen, reading about how the sun is powered by a nuclear reaction, he came to believe that nuclear energy is one of the fundamental forces in the universe. Why not harness it? As for the dangers -- radioactive waste, vulnerability to terrorism, the possibility of a Chernobyl-like meltdown -- Lovelock says it's the lesser of two evils: "Even if they're right about the dangers, and they are not, it is still nothing compared to climate change."

As a last resort, to keep the planet even marginally habitable, Lovelock believes that humans may be forced to manipulate the Earth's climate by erecting solar shades in space or building devices to strip huge quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Although he views large-scale geoengineering as an act of profound hubris -- "I would sooner expect a goat to succeed as a gardener than expect humans to become stewards of the Earth" -- he thinks it may be necessary as an emergency measure, much like kidney dialysis is necessary to a person whose health is failing. In fact, it was Lovelock who inspired his friend Richard Branson to put up a $25 million prize for the Virgin Earth Challenge, which will be awarded to the first person who can figure out a commercially viable way of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. As a judge in the contest, Lovelock is not eligible to win, but he's intrigued by the challenge. His latest thought: suspend hundreds of thousands of 600-foot-long vertical pipes in the tropical oceans, put a valve at the bottom of each pipe and allow deep, nutrient-rich water to be pumped to the surface by wave action. Nutrients from the deep water would increase algae bloom, which would suck up carbon dioxide and help cool the planet.

"It's a way of leveraging the Earth's natural energy system against itself," Lovelock speculates. "I think Gaia would approve."

Oslo is Lovelock's kind of town. It's in the northern latitudes, which will grow more temperate as the climate warms; it has plenty of water; thanks to its oil and gas reserves, it's rich; and there's already lots of creative thinking going on about energy, including, much to Lovelock's satisfaction, renewed discussion about nuclear power. "The main issue they'll face here," Lovelock tells me as we walk along Karl Johans Gate, the city's main boulevard, "is how to manage the hordes of people that will descend upon the city. In the next few decades, half the population of southern Europe will try to move here."

We head down to the waterfront, where we pass Akershus Castle, an imposing thirteenth-century fortress that served as Nazi headquarters during their occupation of the city during World War II. To Lovelock, the parallels between what the world faced then and what the world faces now are clear. "In some ways, it's 1939 all over again," he says. "The threat is obvious, but we've failed to grasp what's at stake. We're still talking about appeasement."

Then, as now, the lack of political leadership is what's most striking to Lovelock. Although he respects Al Gore's efforts to raise people's consciousness, he believes no politician has come close to preparing us for what's coming. "We'll be living in a desperate world in no time," Lovelock says. He believes the time is right for a global-warming version of Winston Churchill's famous "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech he gave to prepare Great Britain for World War II. "People are ready for this," Lovelock says as we pass under the shadow of the castle. "They understand what's happening far better than most politicians."

However the future turns out, Lovelock is unlikely to be around to see it. "My goal is to live a rectangular life: long, strong and steady, then a quick drop at the end," he says. Lovelock shows no signs of hitting his own personal tipping point. Although he's had forty operations, including a heart bypass, he still zooms around the English countryside in his white Honda like a Formula One driver. He and Sandy recently took a monthlong trip through Australia, where they visited the Great Barrier Reef. He's about to start another book about Gaia. Richard Branson has invited him on the first flight on the Virgin Galactic space shuttle late next year --"I want to give him a view of Gaia from space," says Branson. Lovelock is eager to go, and plans to take a test in a centrifuge later this year to see if his body can withstand the G-forces of spaceflight. He shuns talk of his legacy, although he jokes with his kids that he wants his headstone to read, HE NEVER MEANT TO BE PROSCRIPTIVE.

Whatever his epitaph, Lovelock's legacy as one of the most provocative scientists of our time is assured. And for all his gloom and doom, his notion of the planet as a single dynamic system remains a hopeful idea. It suggests that there are rules the system operates by and mechanisms that drive it. These rules and mechanisms can be studied and, possibly, tweaked. In many ways, Lovelock's holistic vision is an antidote to the chaos of twentieth-century science, which fragmented the world into quarks, quantum mechanics and untouchable mystery.

As for the doom that awaits us, Lovelock may well be wrong. Not because he's misread the science (although that's certainly possible) but because he's misread human beings. Few serious scientists doubt that we're on the verge of a climate catastrophe. But for all Lovelock's sensitivity to the subtle dynamics and feedback loops in the climate system, he is curiously tone-deaf to the subtle dynamics and feedback loops in the human system. He believes that, despite our iPhones and space shuttles, we are still tribal animals, largely incapable of acting for the greater good or making long-term decisions for our own welfare. "Our moral progress," says Lovelock, "has not kept up with our technological progress."

But maybe that's exactly what the coming apocalypse is all about. One of the questions that fascinates Lovelock: Life has been evolving on Earth for more than 3 billion years -- and to what purpose? "Like it or not, we are the brains and nervous system of Gaia," he says. "We have now assumed responsibility for the welfare of the planet. How will we manage it?"

As we weave our way through the tourists heading up to the castle, it's easy to look at them and feel sadness. It's harder to look at them and feel hopeful. But when I say this to Lovelock, he argues that the human race has gone through many bottlenecks before --and perhaps we're the better for it. Then he tells me the story of an airplane crash years ago at Manchester Airport. "A fuel tank caught fire during takeoff," Lovelock says. "There was plenty of time for everybody to get out, but many of the passengers wouldn't move. They just stayed there in their seats as they were told to, and the people who escaped had to climb over them to get out. It was perfectly obvious how to get out, but they wouldn't move. They died from the smoke or burned to death. And an awful lot of people, I'm sad to say, are like that. And that's what will happen this time, except on a much vaster scale."

Lovelock looks at me with unflinching blue eyes. "Some people will sit in their seats and do nothing, frozen in panic. Others will move. They'll see what's about to happen, and they'll take action, and they'll survive. They're the carriers of the civilization ahead."

Please note:  When you get to the link mentioned at the end of the article to the public opinion poll, please use the one that J.K. provided me with in his comments rather than the one mentioned in Yes's own article. J.K. says this one works better (and thanks to J.K. for sending it): http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1859 .  

PUBLIC OPINION
Americans are Liberals. Who knew?

by Catherine Bailey

On a series of key domestic issues, Americans are much more progressive than one might think given today's political debates. Here are some of the polling results compiled by the Campaign for America's Future and Media Matters:

• In 2006, even before the release of Sicko, 69% of Americans said the federal government should provide health care for its citizens, up from 59% in 2000.
• When asked in February 2007 if they would pay an extra $500 a year so that all Americans could have health care, 82% said yes.
• Of those surveyed early this year, 79% want caps on carbon emissions, 84% favor higher environmental standards for business,and 86% would like more investment in solar and wind power.
• Support for energy conservation rose to 64% in 2007, up from 56% in 2001, while only 26% favor expanded energy production, down from 33%.
• Since 1972, belief that women should be equal to men in the workplace has risen from 47% to 78%.
• The belief that homosexuals should have equal job rights has risen from 55% to 89% since 1977.

The report covers a wide range of issues, including national defense, unions, immigration, and criminal justice. On issue after issue, the study shows that a majority of Americans are liberals.

Interested? Download the report at http://www.yesmagazine.orgcafmm/

I bought the Fall 2007 issue of Yes! magazine recently. It is subtitled, Building a Just and Sustainable World. From the "Signs of Life: Small Stories About Big Change" section of the magazine, here is an article on solar power:

CLIMATE CHANGE
Solar Power Surge

The solar industry is poised for rapid growth and cost reductions that will make it a mainstream power option in the next few years, according to a new assessment by the WorldWatch Institute in Washington, DC, and the Prometheus Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

People around the world are installing solar cells on the roofs of their homes and businesses. Communities and companies are creating solar parks -- connected arrays of solar panels, sometimes installed along parking lots or in polluted "brown fields" that cannot otherwise be used.

Solar cell manufacturers are now able to produce enough photovoltaic (PV) cells each year to generate 5,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity. That's 10 times the manufacturing capacity of 2002. Some analysts say this number will triple by 2010. A typical coal or nuclear power plant has a capacity of about 1,000-2,000 MW.

After growing at 20-25% per year in the 1980s and '90s the solar PV industry has grown 40-45% per year over the last six years, says Mark Farber, founder of Evergreen Solar, a Marlboro, Massachusetts, company.

With the new generation of plug-in hybrid vehicles, this new abundance could mean solar will spread its reach to include the transportation as well as the electricity sector.

"At these growth rates, solar will hit a home run for addressing the climate crisis," said Todd Larsen, Co-op America's climate action director in Washington, DC.

Climate scientists estimate that we need to reduce carbon emissions globally by at least 80% by 2050 to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

"If we want to do this without coal or nuclear power," Larsen says,"this means that after implementing all available energy efficiency measures, and installing win and geothermal generation, the world will still need an additional 17 terawatts of low-carbon energy by 2050." A terawatt is 1 million megawatts. "Growing at just 25% per year, solar can do this by 2042."

In addition to solar PV, other types of solar power are also growing rapidly. These include solar power are also growing rapidly. These include solar thermal for hot water and industrial applications, and concentrating solar power (CSP), for utility scale applications. In China, an estimated 30 million households now use solar power to heat their water. And California alone may have more than 8,000 MW of CSP by 2020.

Small and large companies alike are getting into the business. First Solar of Phoenix, Arizona, plans to provide 685 MW of solar power to five big projects over the next few years. PPM Energy, a Portland, Oregon, company specializing in win power, announced plans to invest over $1 billion in solar in coming years.

"The conventional energy industry will be surprised by how quickly solar becomes mainstream -- cheap enough to provide carbon-free electricity on rooftops while also meeting the energy needs of hundreds of millions of people in poverty who currently lack electricity," said Janet Sawin, senior researcher at Worldwide Institute.

Alisa Gravitz is executive director of Co-op America, www.coopamerica.org

Gristmill, http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics, has organized articles by Colby Beck responding to most climate change arguments into four categories: States of Denial, Scientific Topics, Types of Argument, and Levels of Sophistication. Each of the four categories has impressive list of headings and subheadings. Thank you to RealClimate fwhere I found the  link to these articles.

If you are looking for a response to a climate skeptic or denier, you may find just what you need here, as the index is very detailed and seems quite comprehensive.

"Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading."

Stages of Denial There's nothing happening Inadequate evidence There is no evidence One record year is not global warming The temperature record is simply unreliable One hundred years is not enough Glaciers have always grown and receded Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect Mauna Loa is a volcano The scientists aren't even sure Contradictory evidence It's cold today in Wagga Wagga Antarctic ice is growing The satellites show cooling What about mid-century cooling? Global warming stopped in 1998 But the glaciers are not melting Antarctic sea ice is increasing Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high Sea level in the Arctic is falling Some sites show cooling No consensus Global warming is a hoax There is no consensus Position statements hide debate Consensus is collusion Peiser refuted Oreskes We don't know why it's happening Models don't work We cannot trust unproven computer models The models don't have clouds If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high Prediction is impossible We can't even predict the weather next week Chaotic systems are not predictable We can't be sure Hansen has been wrong before If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present? The scientists aren't even sure They predicted global cooling in the 1970s Climate change is natural It happened before It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum The medieval warm period was just as warm as today Greenland used to be green Global warming is nothing new! The hockey stick is broken Vineland was full of grapes It's part of a natural change Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle Mars and Pluto are warming too CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes The null hypothesis says global warming is natural Climate is always changing Natural emissions dwarf human emissions The CO2 rise is natural We are just recovering from the LIA It's not caused by CO2 Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming Mars and Pluto are warming too CO2 doesn't lead, it lags What about mid-century cooling? Geological history does not support CO2's importance Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change It's the sun, stupid Climate change is not bad The effects are good What's wrong with warmer weather? The effects are minor Change is normal Climate change can't be stopped Too late Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing It's someone else's problem Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't? The U.S. is a net CO2 sink Economically infeasible Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster Scientific Topics Temperature There is no evidence The temperature record is simply unreliable One hundred years is not enough Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle What's wrong with warmer weather? It's cold today in Wagga Wagga Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect The satellites show cooling Global warming stopped in 1998 They predicted global cooling in the 1970s Some sites show cooling Atmosphere Extreme events Temperature records One record year is not global warming It's cold today in Wagga Wagga Storms Droughts Cryosphere Glaciers Glaciers have always grown and receded But the glaciers are not melting Sea ice Antarctic sea ice is increasing Ice sheets Antarctic ice is growing Greenland used to be green Oceans Sea level in the Arctic is falling Modeling Scenarios Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing Hansen has been wrong before Uncertainties We can't even predict the weather next week Chaotic systems are not predictable We cannot trust unproven computer models The models don't have clouds Climate forcings Solar influences Mars and Pluto are warming too It's the sun, stupid Greenhouse gases Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming CO2 doesn't lead, it lags CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes What about mid-century cooling? Geological history does not support CO2's importance Natural emissions dwarf human emissions Mauna Loa is a volcano The CO2 rise is natural Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change The US is a net CO2 sink Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high Aerosols What about mid-century cooling? If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster Paleo climate Holocene It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum The medieval warm period was just as warm as today Greenland used to be green The hockey stick is broken Vineland was full of grapes We are just recovering from the LIA Ice ages CO2 doesn't lead, it lags Global warming is nothing new! Geologic history What's wrong with warmer weather? Geological history does not support CO2's importance Climate is always changing Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present? Scientific process Global warming is a hoax There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming There is no consensus The null hypothesis says global warming is natural Position statements hide debate If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present? The scientists aren't even sure Consensus is collusion Peiser refuted Oreskes Types of Argument Uninformed There is no evidence One record year is not global warming One hundred years is not enough There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming What's wrong with warmer weather? Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster There is no consensus We cannot trust unproven computer models Misinformed It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum The medieval warm period was just as warm as today Antarctic ice is growing CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes Greenland used to be green The satellites show cooling Natural emissions dwarf human emissions It's the sun, stupid The U.S. is a net CO2 sink But the glaciers are not melting Antarctic sea ice is increasing They predicted global cooling in the 1970s Vineland was full of grapes Cherry Picking It's cold today in Wagga Wagga Antarctic sea ice is growing The satellites show cooling Global warming stopped in 1998 Antarctic sea ice is increasing Vineland was full of grapes Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high The sea level in the Arctic is falling Some sites show cooling Urban Myths The medieval warm period was just as warm as today CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes Greenland used to be green Hansen has been wrong before They predicted global cooling in the 1970s Vineland was full of grapes FUD The temperature record is simply unreliable Glaciers have always grown and receded Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing Mars and Pluto are warming too It's cold today in Wagga Wagga CO2 doesn't lead, it lags There is no consensus Antarctic ice is growing Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect We can't even predict the weather next week Chaotic systems are not predictable What about mid-century cooling? The null hypothesis says global warming is natural Geological history does not support CO2's importance Climate is always changing Natural emissions dwarf human emissions Mauna Loa is a volcano Global warming is nothing new! The CO2 rise is natural The hockey stick is broken Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change The models don't have clouds Global warming stopped in 1998 If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present? If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster The scientists aren't even sure Antarctic sea ice is increasing Peiser refuted Oreskes Vineland was full of grapes Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high Sea level in the Arctic is falling We are just recovering from the LIA Non Scientific Global warming is a hoax Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't? Hansen has been wrong before Position statements hide debate The scientists aren't even sure Consensus is collusion They predicted global cooling in the 1970s Underdog Theories Crackpottery Levels of Sophistication Silly There is no evidence Global warming is a hoax One record year is not global warming Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster Mars and Pluto are warming too Mauna Loa is a volcano Naive One hundred years is not enough Glaciers have always grown and receded Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven't? It's cold today in Wagga Wagga CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes We can't even predict the weather next week We can not trust unproven computer models The satellites show cooling Natural emissions dwarf human emissions The models don't have clouds Global warming stopped in 1998 It's the sun, stupid If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present? The scientists aren't even sure Vineland was full of grapes Some sites show cooling Specious The temperature record is simply unreliable Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum The medieval warm period was just as warm as today What's wrong with warmer weather? Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing CO2 doesn't lead, it lags There is no consensus Antarctic ice is growing Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect Greenland used to be green What about mid-century cooling? The null hypothesis says global warming is natural Geological history does not support CO2's importance Climate is always changing Global warming is nothing new! The CO2 rise is natural Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change Hansen has been wrong before Position statements hide debate But the glaciers are not melting If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster Antarctic sea ice is increasing Consensus is collusion They predicted global cooling in the 1970s Peiser refuted Oreskes Vineland was full of grapes Scientific Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect Chaotic systems are not predictable The hockey stick is broken Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high Sea level in the Arctic is falling We are just recovering from the LIA

Here is an article debunking five climate change myths, thanks to a link to The Met site, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html found on the RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists site: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/. The five climate change myths covered are:

1.  Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming;

2.  Solar activity is the main driver of climate change;

3.  There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming;

4.  The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate;

5.  Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change.

Climate change myths Prof. John Mitchell OBE FRS, Chief Scientist at the Met Office explores some of the common myths about climate change. The Met Office recognises that climate change is a complex subject. There are genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings and myths which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. Recent coverage has questioned the influence of humans on the climate. While the arguments used might have been regarded as genuine areas of sceptical enquiry 20 years ago, further observed warming and advances in climate science render these out of touch. Myth 1 - Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming Levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher than at any time in the last 430,000 years Click on the image for a larger view Only the first part of this statement is true. Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past. In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years. The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming. Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change Temperature change, 1850-2000 Click on the image for a larger view There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. For example, over the last million years most of the long-term changes in climate were probably due to small but well understood changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over much of the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating. However, the situation in the 20th century is more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 have led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century. The final piece of the jigsaw is that as well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century. The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun's energy over the last 50 years. Myth 3 - There is less warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface which disproves human-induced warming We expect greater warming in the upper atmosphere than at the surface in the tropics, but the reverse is true at high latitudes. This expectation holds whether the cause of warming is due to greenhouse gases or changes in the Sun's output. Until recently, measurements of the temperature changes in the tropics in recent decades did not appear to show greater warming aloft than at the surface. It has now been shown that allowing for uncertainties in the observations, the theoretical and modelling results can be reconciled with the observations. The bottom line is that the range of available information is now consistent with increased warming through the troposphere (the lowest region of the atmosphere). Myth 4 - The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate Solar activity, 1850-2000 Click on the image for a larger view A recent experiment has apparently shown that gamma radiation can form ions (electrically charged particles) in the atmosphere. Under certain circumstances, these can subsequently form ultra-fine particles (or aerosols), which could conceivably act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and therefore form clouds. However, the mechanism by which cosmic rays might affect climate is as yet purely speculative and unquantified. While it has long been known that radiation could form ions and, in theory, ultimately lead to cloud formation, the importance of this process compared to all the other major sources of particles and CCN has not been proven. Indeed, there is no evidence that the flux of cosmic rays has decreased over the last 30 years. The bottom line is, even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases. Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change There have been major advances in the development and use of models over the last 20 years. The models are based mainly on the laws of physics. There are also empirical techniques which use, for example, studies of detailed processes involved in cloud formation. The most advanced computer models also include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and oceans, along with detailed descriptions of the feedbacks between all components of the climate system including the cryosphere and biosphere. Climate models have been used to reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last hundred years and the main features of the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000) years ago. The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme events. Met Office work on climate change The Met Office Hadley Centre was opened in the early 1990s and is a world-leading climate centre. It has over 150 world-renowned climate experts who draw from the expertise of the supercomputer modellers at the Met Office. It is the UK's official centre for climate change research - partly funded by Defra (the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) and MOD - which provides in-depth information and advice to the Government on climate change issues. It undertakes studies of the global climate using similar, though more extensive, models of the atmosphere used for the prediction of weather conditions. It informs the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was the leading UK contributor to the Fourth Assessment Review published in February 2007. It assembled much of the scientific basis of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (pub. October 2006). Its research also informs the UK Climate Impacts Programme on how climate change will impact at regional and national levels in the UK. It advises businesses and governments on the science of climate change and strategies for mitigation and adaptation.

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)
Ligue des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen (LDH)

---

Press release

France/USA

DONALD RUMSFELD CHARGED WITH TORTURE DURING TRIP TO FRANCE

Complaint Filed Against Former Defense Secretary for Torture, Abuse at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib

October 26, 2007, Paris, France - Today, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the "Court of First Instance" (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with ordering and authorizing torture. Rumsfeld was in Paris for a talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine.

"The filing of this French case against Rumsfeld demonstrates that we will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in the torture program are brought to justice. Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide. A torturer is an enemy of all humankind," said CCR President Michael Ratner.

"France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld's accountability for crimes of torture in Guantanamo and Iraq. France has no choice but to open an investigation if an alleged torturer is on its territory. I hope that the fight against impunity will not be sacrificed in the name of politics. We call on France to refuse to be a safe haven for criminals." said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen.

"We want to combat impunity and therefore demand a judicial investigation and a criminal prosecution wherever there is jurisdiction over the torture incidents," said ECCHR General Secretary Wolfgang Kaleck.

"That a criminal State representative should benefit from impunity is always unacceptable. Because the USA is the super power of the beginning of this century and, above all, because it is a democracy, the impunity of Donald Rumsfeld is even more insufferable than that of a Hissène Habré or a Radovan Karadzic", underlined Jean-Pierre Dubois, LDH President.
 
The criminal complaint states that because of the failure of authorities in the United States and Iraq to launch any independent investigation into the responsibility of Rumsfeld and other high-level U.S. officials for torture despite a documented paper trail and government memos implicating them in direct as well as command responsibility for torture - and because the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court - it is the legal obligation of states such as France to take up the case.

In this case, charges are brought under the 1984 Convention against Torture, ratified by both the United States and France, which has been used in France in previous torture cases.

French courts therefore have an obligation under the Convention against Torture to prosecute individuals responsible for acts of torture if they are present on French territory (1). This will be the only case filed while he is in the country, which makes the obligations to investigate and prosecute under international law extremely strong.

Rumsfeld's presence on French territory gives French courts jurisdiction to prosecute him for having ordered and authorized torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

In addition, having resigned from his position of U.S. Secretary of Defense a year ago, Rumsfeld can no longer try to claim immunity as a head of state or government official. Nor can he claim immunity as former state official, as international law does not recognize such immunity in the case of international crimes including the crime of torture.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, former commander of Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, submitted written testimony to the Paris Prosecutor for the plaintiffs' case on Rumsfeld's responsibility for the abuse of detainees.

This is the fifth time Rumsfeld has been charged with direct involvement in torture stemming from his role in the Bush administration's program of torture post-9/11.
 
Two previous criminal complaints were filed in Germany under its universal jurisdiction statute, which allows Germany to prosecute serious international crimes regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. One case was filed in fall 2004 by CCR, FIDH, and Berlin attorney Wolfgang Kaleck; that case was dismissed in February 2005 in response to official pressure from the U.S., in particular from the Pentagon.

The second case was filed in fall 2006 by the same groups as well as dozens of national and international human rights groups, Nobel Peace Prize winners and the United Nations former Special Rapporteur on Torture. The 2006 complaint was presented on behalf of 12 Iraqi citizens who had been held and abused in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and one Saudi citizen still held at Guantánamo. This case was dismissed in April 2007, and an appeal will be filed against this decision next week.

Two other cases were filed against Rumsfeld in Argentina in 2005 and in Sweden in 2007.

The complaint and the documents attached are available on FIDH Website :
http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article4829

---

Press contact : Karine Appy + 33 1 43 55 14 12 / + 33 1 43 55 25 18 / + 33 6 68 42 93 47

---

(1)  See articles 689 para 1 and 2 of the french Code of Criminal Procedure :
    - Article 689-1)
    In accordance with the international Conventions quoted in the following articles, a person guilty of committing any of the offences listed by these provisions outside the territory of the Republic and who happens to be in France may be prosecuted and tried by French courts. The provisions of the present article apply to attempts to commit these offences, in every case where attempt is punishable.
    - Article 689-2
    For the implementation of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in New York on 10th December 1984, any person guilty of torture in the sense of article 1 of the Convention may be prosecuted and tried in accordance with the provisions of article 689-1.

As reference for my previous post regarding Donald Rumsfeld being charged with torture in France in connection with his part in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Prison in Cuba, at the end of this post I've included the (brief) United Nations Convention Against Torture.
 
As an explanation about the previous post regarding Rumsfeld and the FIDH (International Federation Against Torture), if the abbreviation throws you, it stands for the French version of the name. The information was sent to me in an email from FIDH. 

Before I started spending more time on climate change issues, I used to write letters from information posted on FIDH websites in addition to the ones I still write for Amnesty International. I'll add the FIDH and Amnesty web addresses and a sample letter from FIDH below. 

As with Amnesty International letters, if you decide to write letters for Amnesty or FIDH from their websites, read their letter-writing instructions before you start, as the letters must be polite and a-political - what they're after is protection of the life and wellbeing (i.e., access to medical attention, that person not be tortured) or release of particular people or groups of people. (Amnesty letters are shorter generally and sent to a much smaller list of people compared to the FIDH letters.)

http://www.fidh.org/_news.php3
http://www.amnesty.ca/      (Amnesty Canada)
http://www.amnestyusa.org/  (Amnesty USA)
http://www.amnesty.org/    (Amnesty International)

http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article4825  (address of letter request from FIDH)
23/10/2007

Ongoing arbitrary detention of five leaders of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association - ETH 001 / 1007 / OBS 133

The Observatory has been informed by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) about the ongoing arbitrary detention of five teachers and leaders of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA).

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), requests your urgent intervention on the following situation in Ethiopia:

Brief description of the situation:

According to the information received, Messrs. Anteneh Getnet, a member of the ETA Addis Ababa Regional Council, Meqcha Mengistu, local ETA chairperson in the East Gojjam area as well as a member of the ETA Committee responsible for the implementation of an HIV/AIDS education programme (EFAIDS), and Woldie Dana, another ETA leader, were arrested in May and June 20071. In addition, Mrs. Wibit Legamo, the wife of Mr. Woldia Dana, and Mr. Berrhanu Aba-Debissa, another ETA member, were arrested in August 2007.

They are all still being held in detention at the Kaliti Prison, in Addis Ababa, and would have been denied bail. In addition, they are reportedly due to appear in court on November 27, 28 and 29, 2007. They were allegedly accused of being members of the Ethiopian People's Patriotic Front (EPPF), an armed opposition group.

The Observatory fears for the physical and psychological integrity of Messrs. Anteneh Getnet, Meqcha Mengistu, Woldie Dana, Berrhanu Aba-Debissa and Mrs. Wibit Legamo as they are at risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment while in detention, and fears that the accusation against them might only aim at discrediting and sanctioning their activity in favour of human rights in Ethiopia.

The Observatory indeed recalls that ETA members have been harassed and repressed for many years (see 2006 Annual Report of the Observatory).

Background information:

In December 2006, Messrs. Anteneh Getnet, Meqcha Mengistu and Woldie Dana, along with Mr. Tilahun Ayalew, another ETA official, had already been arrested2, before being released in March 2007. They had also been accused of being members of the EPPF but a court had ruled on March 22, 2007 that it had found no evidence to support the charge.

On May 28, 2007, Mr. Tilahun Ayalew went into hiding on hearing that government security agents were coming to arrest him. The agents arrested his wife instead, but released her the following day. Arrested in December 2006, without a warrant, he was transferred to the Addis Ababa Police Commission on December 26, 2006. On December 28, 2006, an Addis Ababa court ordered his release but the police rearrested him and he remained in detention until he was released on March 22, 2007. As a result of the torture he now has difficulty walking.

Messrs. Anteneh Getnet and Meqcha Mengistu also reported that they were tortured during their previous detention, and claimed that they were coerced into signing false confessions that they had links with the EPPF. The court rejected these "confessions", but did not investigate their allegations of torture.

Actions requested:

Please write to the authorities in Ethiopia, urging them to:

i.Guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of Messrs. Anteneh Getnet, Meqcha Mengistu, Woldie Dana, Berrhanu Aba-Debissa and Mrs. Wibit Legamo;

ii.Release them immediately and unconditionally as their detention is arbitrary as it merely aims at sanctioning their trade union activities;

iii.Put an end to all acts of harassment against all human rights defenders in Ethiopia;

iv.Conform with the provisions of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998, especially its Article 1, which states that "everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels", and Article 12.2, which provides that "the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration";

v.Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by Ethiopia.

Addresses:

 H.E. Ato Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, P.O. Box: 1031, Fax: (251-1)1 55 2020, Tel. (251-1) 122 6767 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 Dr Sintayehu Woldemikael, Minister of Education, Ministry of Education, PO Box 1367, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Fax: +251 11 5511355
 H.E. Ato Assefa Kesito, Minister of Justice, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia P.O. Box: 1370, Fax: (251-1)15 52 0874 / + 251 11 5517775, Tel. (251-1) 551 5099 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Ambassador Teshome Toga, Speaker, House of People's Representatives, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, P.O.Box: 80001, Fax: (251-1)1 55 0900, Tel. (251-1) 1241013 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Ato Degfe Bula, Speaker, House of Federation, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, P.O.Box: 80001, Fax: (251-1)1 55 0722, Tel. (251-1) 124 2301 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Ato Girma Woledegiorgis, President, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, P.o.Box: 1031, Fax: (251-1)1 55 2020, Tel. (251-1) 551 8850 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Ato Siraj Feregesa , Minister of Federal Affairs, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, P.O. Box: 1370, Fax: (251-1)5 52 0000, Tel. (251-1) 552 0000 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Dr. Misrak Mekonen, Speaker, Amhara National Regional State Council. P.O. Box: 312, Fax: (251-1) 058 220 1068, Tel. (251-1) 058 220 2252 Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Commissioner Workneh Gebeyehu Commissioner, FDRE Federal Police Commission P.O. Box 199, Fax (251-1) 153 4253, Tel. (251-1) 551 2744 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 H.E. Comissioner Befekadu Seboka Commissioner, Addis Ababa Police Commission, P.O. Box 5647, Fax (251-1) 155 0360, Tel. (251-1) 156 0115 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 H.E. Ambassador Kassa G/Hiwot, Commissionor, Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, P.O. Box: 1165, Fax: (251-1)6 45 9290, Tel. (251-1) 645 9228 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. Ato Abay Tekle, Ombudsman, FDRE P.O. Box: 2459, Fax: (251-1)6 45 9229, Tel. (251-1) 663 5090 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
 H.E. M. Fisseha Yimer, Ambassador, Permanent Representative to the United Nations (Geneva), Rue de Moillebeau 56, P.O. Box 338, 1211 Geneva 19, email: mission.ethiopia@ties.itu.int

Please also write to the diplomatic mission or embassy of Ethiopia in your respective country.

*** Geneva - Paris, October 23, 2007

Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.

The Observatory, a FIDH and OMCT venture, is dedicated to the protection of Human Rights Defenders and aims to offer them concrete support in their time of need. The Observatory was the winner of the 1998 Human Rights Prize of the French Republic.

To contact the Observatory, call the emergency line: E-mail: Appeals@fidh-omct.org Tel and fax FIDH + 33 (0) 1 43 55 20 11 / +33 1 43 55 18 80 Tel and fax OMCT + 41 (0) 22 809 49 39 / + 41 22 809 49 29

- 

ETH 001 / 1007 / OBS 133 Arbitrary detention / Judicial proceedings / Fear of torture or ill-treatment Ethiopia October 23, 2007

	.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1) status of ratifications declarations and reservations monitoring body The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975, Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, Have agreed as follows: PART I Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. 2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 General comment on its implementation 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. Article 5 1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases: (a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; (b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State; (c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate. 2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article. 3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law. Article 6 1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted. 2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts. 3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph I of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides. 4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction. Article 7 1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. 2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1. 3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings. Article 8 1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. 2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offences. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.   3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested State. 4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1. Article 9 1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. 2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph I of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them. Article 10 1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. 2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person. Article 11 Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture. Article 12 Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. Article 13 Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given. Article 14 1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation. 2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law. Article 15 Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made. Article 16 1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion. PART II Article 17 1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of ten experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience. 2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and who are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture. 3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting. 4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At. Ieast four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties. 5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3 of this article. 6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment. 7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties. (amendment (see General Assembly resolution 47/111 of 16 December 1992); status of ratification) Article 18 1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected. 2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that: (a) Six members shall constitute a quorum; (b) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present. 3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention. 4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure. 5. The States Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement to the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article. (amendment (see General Assembly resolution 47/111 of 16 December 1992);  status of ratification) Article 19 1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and such other reports as the Committee may request. 2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit the reports to all States Parties. 3. Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such general comments on the report as it may consider appropriate and shall forward these to the State Party concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee. 4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments made by it in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph I of this article. Article 20 1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned. 2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned, as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently. 3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory. 4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Commission shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation. 5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs I to 4 of th is article s hall be con fidential , and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. Article 21 1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure; (a) If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions ofthis Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months afler the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending or available in the matter; (b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State; (c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention; (d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article; (e) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in this Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission; (f) In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information; (g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing; (h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report: (i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached; (ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report. In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned. 2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration. Article 22 1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. 2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communications submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph I and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State. 4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned. 5. The Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that: (a) The same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; (b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective reliefto the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention. 6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article. 7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual. 8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the SecretaryGeneral, unless the State Party has made a new declaration. Article 23 The members of the Committee and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph I (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Article 24 The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations. PART III Article 25 1. This Convention is open for signature by all States. 2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 26 This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. Article 27 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession. 2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force onthe thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession. Article 28 1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20. 2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph I of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 29 1 . Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The SecretaryGeneral shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering an d voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the SecretaryGeneral shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance. 2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph I of this article shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. 3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted. Article 30 1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from thc date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court. 2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Con vention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph I of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph I of this article with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation. 3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 31 1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of- the notification by the Secretary-General. 2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. 3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State. Article 32 The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States Members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it of the following: (a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26; (b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29; (c) Denunciations under article 31. Article 33 1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

© Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland OHCHR-UNOG 8-14 Avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Telephone Number (41-22) 917-9000
	CONTACT | HOME |SITE MAP | SEARCH | INDEX | DOCUMENTS | TREATIES | MEETINGS | NEWS ROOM

You may or may not have heard about the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen and software programming engineer, who was returning to Canada from a business trip in 2002, was detained by the U.S., and returned to Syria, where he was born, and where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured. 

Canada has apologized to Maher Arar, for their part in the incident, and Mr. Arar's has also received financially compensation from the government. No apology or money will give Mr. Arar back his life before he was sent to Syria and tortured.  Ms. Condi's statements were a start, but it does not indicate that the United States has accepted its responsibility in sending a man to a country where it was likely he would be subject to torture. The U.S. has also still not taken Mr. Arar off their no-fly list.
 

The first few paragraphs of an article in the Toronto Star, Thursday, October, 25, 2007, front page, by Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa Bureau, stated:

Arar Case
CONDI's (QUASI) MEA CULPA
Rice stops well short of apology in admitting U.S. bungled Canadian engineer's deportation

Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau

Ottawa - In a stunning turnaround, U.S. Secretary of State ondoleeza Rice has acknowledge the United States mishandled the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen deported to Syria by American authorities.

But Rice stops well short yesterday of apologizing for the role American government officials played in Arar's fate. Instead, she appeared to address only clear problems of communication between the U.S. and Canadian governments in the whole affair.

For the rest of the article, see: http://www.thestar.com/article/270324

What follows is a  list of seven items about what is wrong with the earth, listed at the end of an article from the Friday, October 26, 2007, Toronto Star, "World & Comment" section, "Humanity's survival at stake: UN", by  Peter Gorrie, Environment Reporter.  The United Nations report that the article is talking about is a 572-page report called Global Environment Outlook from the United Nations Environment Programme.

The site for the whole report is:  http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/ and a shorter brochure version is available here: http://www.unep.org/geo/Docs/GEO-4AssessmentBrochure.pdf .  It also mentions global and regional data  portals:  http://geodata.grid.unep.ch (in the form of charts and diagrams?).

Back to the list of items summarized from the Global Environment Outlook publication:

THE TROUBLE WITH EARTH

*  The human population has grown from 5 billion to 6.7 billion since 1987. That's led to destruction or depletion of water, soil, forests and spcies.

*  International trade has tripled. Benefits are offset by the spread of pollution and invasive species.

*  The global average per-capita income is up 40 per cent as gap between rich and poor grows.

*  Air quality has improved, most noticeably in rich developed countries. That's often because polluting industries moved to poor nations. Bad air is estimated to kill 2 million people each year.

*  Greenhouse gas emissions have risen by a third, leading to much higher concentrations in the atmosphere, warming temperatures and the threat of catastrophic climate change.

*  The yield from an average hectare of cropland has increased to 2.5 tonnes, from 1.8 tonnes in 1987, but "unsustainable land use is causing degradation, a threat as serious as climate change."

*  By 2025, nearly 2 billion people will live in countries with absolute shortages of water.