FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

Occupy Ecology Deeply

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

BP's appeal to stop 'fictitious' U.S. oil spill claims fails


Yahoo News
News

 

BP's appeal to stop 'fictitious' U.S. oil spill claims fails

Reuters


A hard hat from an oil worker lies in oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on East Grand Terre Island, Louisiana
.
View gallery
A hard hat from an oil worker lies in oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on East Grand Terre Island, …
 


(Reuters) - One of BP's attempts to curb payouts for what it says are "fictitious" and "absurd" claims related to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill has failed after a legal appeal was rejected by a U.S. court.

BP had argued in its appeal that the administration of a 2012 settlement agreement was faulty because it allowed claimants without actual damages to join in.

But a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday affirmed a federal judge's approval of the multi-billion dollar settlement between the oil company and businesses and individuals who lost money and property in the spill.

The ruling is a blow to the company's attempt to curb payouts to what it says are undeserving claimants.

Two out of three judges on the appeals court panel rejected BP's arguments. The court's findings said that the company had failed to explain "how this court or the district court should identify or even discern the existence of 'claimants that have suffered no cognizable injury.'"

BP said in an emailed statement on Saturday that it was assessing its legal options following the court's decision.

"BP will continue to press its position on the proper interpretation of the settlement agreement's provisions requiring a causal nexus between a claimant's injury and the spill," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

BP had originally projected that its settlement in the case would cost $7.8 billion. As of late October it had boosted this estimate to $9.2 billion, and said this sum could grow "significantly higher" with billions of dollars already having been paid out to claimants who range from hotel owners to oyster gatherers.

Amongst the claims against which BP has protested are one for $21 million from a Louisiana rice mill which is located 40 miles from the coast and which earned more revenue in 2010 than in any of the previous three years.

Three years on, the shadow of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig continues to hang over the company. The blast ruptured a BP well killing 11 people and triggering the largest-ever U.S. offshore oil spill.

BP still faces potential fines under the Clean Water Act. It has filed numerous lawsuits to curb payouts related to the spill after taking provisions for $42.4 billion to cover the clean-up, compensation and fines.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis and Sarah Young in LONDON; additional reporting by Andrew Callus; Editing by Toby Chopra)

Friday, October 11, 2013

Atomic Energy -- Unnecessary, Uneconomic, Uninsurable, Unevacuable and Unsafe


politics



Ralph Nader


Saturday, October 5, 2013

Capitalism or the Environment


Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice

Capitalism or the Environment

If all you care about is making more stuff, capitalism may be the best system ever. But if you want to save the planet from environmental catastrophe our current economic system is a dead end.

I remember in my socialist youth often being told: “Your ideas sound good but that’s just not how things work in real life.”

In my socialist sixties these same words seem appropriate as an analysis of mainstream environmentalism today.

Here is the harsh reality:

The capitalist drive to maximize profits explains the externalizing of environmental costs. Capitalism allows small minorities to profit at the expense of others. Private ownership of what are social means of livelihood allows capitalists to make decisions that pass the real costs of industry to communities, workers, future generations and other species.

Worse, capitalism requires constant growth because it always needs more profit. Making ever more profit is what motivates people to make investments. But what happens when the environment needs a smaller human footprint? When, at least in wealthier countries, we must learn to live with much less stuff?

All the evidence shows capitalism is really lousy at dealing with declining markets. Every time the economy shrinks for a sustained period capitalism goes into a crisis. Banks crash, unemployment rises and wars are often necessary to get capitalism out of its crisis.

Supporters of capitalism claim the system is based on freedom and choice, but when it comes to the environment for many people this amounts to the freedom to choose between destroying the planet or having a job. The promoters of tar sands, fracking, coal mining and pipelines are explicit about this and, in fact, go even further. The business pages are full of stories quoting the captains of the carbon-industrial complex as telling us what amounts to: “You must choose between economic prosperity and what is good for the environment, because you can’t have both.”

If we continue with capitalism, they are correct.

Yet some so-called environmentalists look to capitalism for solutions. That’s like asking the fox to fix the hen house. You can’t be a serious environmentalist and support capitalism. A sustainable economy is incompatible with a system that constantly demands more profit.

Now that the human population has passed seven billion, it should be obvious that we inhabit a planet of finite resources. But population growth is not the problem. Human energy remains our most precious and underutilized resource. Once basic material needs for food, clothing, housing and health care have been met, human well-being depends less on consumption than on opportunities for education, employment, social participation and social recognition.

Science leaves little reasonable doubt that the burning of currently known reserves of coal, oil and natural gas will push atmospheric carbon dioxide levels past a tipping point, after which rising global temperatures will irreversibly undermine the conditions on which human life as we know it depends.

Despite the weight of evidence and the urgency of the problem, capitalism rests on the expansion of fossil fuel production and use.

Around the planet trillions of dollars are being spent to develop massive deposits of shale oil and gas. In Canada capitalist investment is focused on expanding oil production from tar sands. The promoters claim that these developments will create jobs. But the funds required to develop and transport that fuel will create far fewer jobs than would be produced if equivalent amounts were spent on the development of solar, wind and geothermal power. Far more jobs could be produced with investments in domestic employment for domestic markets, in the production and distribution of local agriculture, clothing, shoes and communications products. More jobs would be created by investments in child care, elder care, social housing, public transit and other green infrastructure.

But capitalism prefers investments in fossil fuels because corporate profits now largely depend on cheap fuel. Equivalent profits cannot be made meeting actual human needs.

So, we have some important choices to make: Support capitalism or support the environment. Build a different sort of economic system that can prosper in harmony with the environment or fiddle with capitalism as our planet burns.


Gary Engler is an elected union officer and co-author of the just released New Commune-ist Manifesto — Workers of the World It Really is Time to Unite, an updating of the original designed to provoke discussion about the future of unions and the Left. Read other articles by Gary.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Radiation Readings Soar at Leaking Fukushima Nuclear Plant --- So they duct it!


CommonDreams.org

Published on Sunday, September 1, 2013 by Common Dreams

New leak patched with plastic tape

- Common Dreams staff



An aerial view shows Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO)'s tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and its contaminated water storage tanks (bottom) in Fukushima, in this photo taken by Kyodo August 20, 2013. Japan's nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday it is concerned that more storage tanks at the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant will spring leaks, following the discovery that highly contaminated water is leaking from one of the hastily built containers. Picture taken August 20, 2013. REUTERS/Kyodo

Radiated water leaking from tanks at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant is 18 times more dangerous than had been previously reported.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which owns the Dai-Ichi Fukushima plant, originally said the radiation emitted by the leaking water was 100 millisieverts an hour.

Now, the company admits, the testing equipment used in the previously announced August 22nd testing could only read measurements of up to a maximum of 100 millisieverts.

Saturday's test, using a more accurate device, showed a level of 1,800 millisieverts an hour, a level that Reuters says is "enough to kill an exposed person in four hours."
In addition, TEPCO announced Sunday that it has discovered a leak on another pipe emitting radiation levels of 230 millisieverts an hour. TEPCO said it halted the leak from a pipe connecting two water storage tanks by patching it with plastic tape just hours after stumbling upon the potentially lethal radioactive hot spot.
Japan Times reports Sunday:

The pipe, which was leaking a drop about every 90 seconds, was sealed using absorption material and plastic tape. A puddle of giving off 230 millisieverts per hour was found below it, TEPCO said.
 
“We have to suspect that the high radiation levels were caused by the toxic water oozing from the flange connections,” a TEPCO spokesman said, adding that no conclusions had been reached.
 


This photo taken on August 6, 2013 shows local government officials and nuclear experts at Fukushima after the contaminated water was discovered. (AFP Photo)




Image taken by operator TEPCO on August 26, 2013 shows Toshimitsu Motegi, Japan's Economy, Trade and Industry Minister, inspecting the Fukushima plant. TEPCO said Sunday it had found highly radioactive water dripping from a pipe connecting two coolant tanks at one of four radiation hotspots at Fukushima. (AFP Photo)


Friday, July 26, 2013

Scientists discover what’s killing the bees and it’s worse than you thought




BEE APOCALYPSE NOW


Scientists discover what’s killing the bees and it’s worse than you thought





Outlawing a type of insecticides is not a panacea. AP Photo/Ben Margot

As we’ve written before, the mysterious mass die-off of honey bees that pollinate $30 billion worth of crops in the US has so decimated America’s apis mellifera population that one bad winter could leave fields fallow. Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probable causes of bee deaths and the rather scary results show that averting beemageddon will be much more difficult than previously thought.

Scientists had struggled to find the trigger for so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that has wiped out an estimated 10 million beehives, worth $2 billion, over the past six years. Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearing parasites and poor nutrition. But in a first-of-its-kind study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists at the University of Maryland and the US Department of Agriculture have identified a witch’s brew of pesticides and fungicides contaminating pollen that bees collect to feed their hives. The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying though they do not identify the specific cause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once.

When researchers collected pollen from hives on the east coast pollinating cranberry, watermelon and other crops and fed it to healthy bees, those bees showed a significant decline in their ability to resist infection by a parasite called Nosema ceranae. The parasite has been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder though scientists took pains to point out that their findings do not directly link the pesticides to CCD. The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite.

Most disturbing, bees that ate pollen contaminated with fungicides were three times as likely to be infected by the parasite. Widely used, fungicides had been thought to be harmless for bees as they’re designed to kill fungus, not insects, on crops like apples.

“There’s growing evidence that fungicides may be affecting the bees on their own and I think what it highlights is a need to reassess how we label these agricultural chemicals,” Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the study’s lead author, told Quartz.

Labels on pesticides warn farmers not to spray when pollinating bees are in the vicinity but such precautions have not applied to fungicides.
Bee populations are so low in the US that it now takes 60% of the country’s surviving colonies just to pollinate one California crop, almonds. And that’s not just a west coast problem—California supplies 80% of the world’s almonds, a market worth $4 billion.

In recent years, a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids has been linked to bee deaths and in April regulators banned the use of the pesticide for two years in Europe where bee populations have also plummeted. But vanEngelsdorp, an assistant research scientist at the University of Maryland, says the new study shows that the interaction of multiple pesticides is affecting bee health.

“The pesticide issue in itself is much more complex than we have led to be believe,” he says. “It’s a lot more complicated than just one product, which means of course the solution does not lie in just banning one class of product.”

The study found another complication in efforts to save the bees: US honey bees, which are descendants of European bees, do not bring home pollen from native North American crops but collect bee chow from nearby weeds and wildflowers. That pollen, however, was also contaminated with pesticides even though those plants were not the target of spraying.

“It’s not clear whether the pesticides are drifting over to those plants but we need take a new look at agricultural spraying practices,” says vanEngelsdorp.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Earth Nearing an Environmental "Tipping Point"

Science News

Is Earth Nearing an Environmental "Tipping Point"?


Humanity may be pushing the planet toward sudden, irreversible ecological changes




Climatewire

 
glacier, meliting, earth, tipping point
TIPPING POINT: Climate change, habitat loss, population growth and other human impacts may be pushing the planet toward a critical transition to another ecological state.Image: Flickr/NasaEarthObservatory
 

Human activities are pushing Earth toward a "tipping point" that could cause sudden, irreversible changes in relatively stable conditions that have allowed civilization to flourish, a new study warns.

There are signs that a toxic brew of climate change, habitat loss and population growth is dramatically reshaping life on Earth, an international team of researchers reported in the journal Nature.

Those pressures are greater than the natural forces that caused the end of the last ice age roughly 11,700 years ago, a time when half the planet's large mammal species went extinct and humans migrated out of Africa.

"We are doing enough to cause one of these tipping points," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a paleobiologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The question now is, how close are we? Is it inevitable? What are the changes that we see coming down the road that we should be aware of in order to make the best of it, essentially."

The answer provided by Barnosky and more than 20 other experts in paleontology, ecology, geology, population biology and complex systems isn't comforting.

The scientists say it's likely -- though not certain -- that Earth is close to another wholesale transformation, but when that will happen and whether it will be irreversible isn't clear.

"We know that at the landscape scale, if you disturb between 50 to 90 percent of patches, you see major changes in ones that you haven't disturbed directly," Barnosky said. "We know that we are at a point on the planet where you have more than 43 percent of the land surface wholesale transformed for human needs. If we transform more and more, we'll be at a point where even places we haven't transformed with our sledgehammers will go through major changes."

The researchers say there is a pressing need for better models and observations to help anticipate future changes and determine how close the planet is to a global tipping point.

The difficulty lies in developing methods to pinpoint the thresholds beyond which systems can flip from relative stability or slow, linear change to rapid transformation.

Scientists hope to reduce 'biological surprises'


 "We need to be able to anticipate what are the worst-case scenarios and develop work-arounds in time to actually work around them," Barnosky said. "What we don't want are huge biological surprises that affect how we grow our food or where we get our water."

The idea isn't new. In recent years, scientists who study the climate have argued that humans have changed it enough to push Earth into a new geologic epoch, the Anthropocene. Biologists have warned that accelerating rates of species loss suggest the planet is entering the sixth great extinction in its history, on par with the event that wiped out the dinosaurs.

In 2009, another international team of scientists publishing a study in Nature attempted to lay out a series of seven "planetary boundaries" to preserve conditions in which humans can thrive -- and argued that the world has blown by three of those boundaries already.

"They're all pieces of the same puzzle," Barnosky said. "What's different about what we've come up with here is that we've looked at the past. We talk about the Anthropocene and all of these changes, but there hasn't really been a context to put it in."

The new study uses seven major, undisputed planetary shifts as its benchmarks: the transition 11,700 years ago from the last ice age to the current "interglacial" climate; the five mass extinctions that occurred 65 million, 200 million, 251 million, 359 million and 443 million years ago; and the Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago, when the number and type of species increased rapidly.

They tried to compare the forces currently reshaping the planet with the causes of those earlier planetary shifts.

They include the rapidly growing human population, which now stands at roughly 7 billion and is projected to reach 9 billion by 2045 -- a factor that didn't play into events like the previous mass extinctions or the end of the previous ice age.

That surge in population is likely to multiply the stress from land-use change, freshwater depletion and climate change, the new paper says, unless humans wean themselves from fossil fuels, reduce the amount of land and water consumed per person, and protect yet-untouched parts of the land and oceans from future development.

U.N. report points to 'irreversible changes'


 Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University who did not contribute to the analysis, questioned the way Barnosky and his colleagues presented their results.

But Pimm agreed that the possibility of rapid, large-scale change is real.

"When you cut through all the unnecessary jargon and hype of tying this to obscure mathematics, they are saying we could be experiencing some significant changes, and they could be rapid. And they could be quite devastating," he said. "I think it's entirely plausible that could happen."

The new analysis comes as the U.N. Environment Programme issued its own report warning that Earth is undergoing unprecedented changes.

"As human pressures on the Earth system accelerate, several critical global, regional and local thresholds are close or have been exceeded," UNEP's fifth Global Environmental Outlook says. "Once these have been passed, abrupt and possible irreversible changes to the life-support functions of the planet are likely to occur, with significant adverse implications for human well-being."

The analysis, released ahead of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development later this month in Rio de Janeiro, examines the world's progress toward achieving 90 environmental goals that have broad international agreement.

Humanity has made significant progress on just four of those goals, the report found. Climate change is among those for which no progress has been made.
Meanwhile, there are signs of "complex, non-linear changes" already at work in parts of the world, the report says -- such as increased incidence of malaria in areas where average temperatures have crossed the threshold that encourages the spread of mosquitoes that carry the disease.

But the situation is not hopeless, the UNEP analysis finds. It says the world is capable of meeting sustainability targets by the middle of the next century to improve human well-being and protect the environment.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

3,000 Years of Abusing Earth on a Global Scale



SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN

 

3,000 Years of Abusing Earth on a Global Scale


 

A new perspective emanating from archaeology and ecology suggests that humanity has spent thousands of years making widespread and profound changes to the "natural" world




earth

GLOBAL REACH: New research suggests that humans have had a global environmental impact for at least 3,000 years.Image: NASA
 
 
 
Wherever you go on this blue, green and white globe of ours, odds are some person has been there before you—and left a mark. That's because the hunting, farming or burning practices of our most distant ancestors have shaped most land areas on the planet, argues an interdisciplinary team of archaeologists and ecologists in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If we are indeed living in the Anthropocene—a new geologic epoch brought on by the outsized environmental effects of the human species—then this new interval isn't just a few hundred years old, it is older than the industrial revolution.

The researchers set out to investigate just how long human being have been profoundly changing the environment on land. "This is a super important question for the identity of humanity," argues ecologist Erle Ellis of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, a co-author. "Are we the people who transformed the planet for hundreds of generations, or the people who just recently started destroying things?"

To answer that outstanding question the researchers started with a vast spread of archaeological and ecological data from around the world, particularly micro charcoal records from sediment cores. The charcoal delivers a long-term record of human burning, whether intentional or accidental, that coincides with the arrival of modern humans in a particular area. That arrival also often coincides with the extinction of large predators and large animals, generally.

But how exactly do humans impact a new environment? Scientists have used computer models that aim to estimate how quickly and how profoundly Homo sapiens change the landscape. One option estimates land use simply based on the number of humans around, assuming a minimum acreage required to support a person. The other model has humans relatively quickly sprawl through an entire area, but then contract to intensify land use in support of a larger but denser population. This might be dubbed the laziness principle—humans invest the least amount of work, technology or any other resource as possible to survive and even thrive, these researchers argue. "People are doing the easiest thing, knocking out top predators early on," Ellis explains. "There's a pretty big impact per person to make a living, [because people are] burning big swathes of forest just to make it easier to get some game."

According to this model, and the charcoal record where it is available, a relatively small number of humans began to transform most of the planet's land surface at least 3,000 years ago. "If people can get away with less work, they're going to do less work," says archaeologist Dorian Fuller of University College London, who also contributed to the research.

Take for example rice cultivation in Asia, developed some 6,000 years ago in the Yangtze River Valley but not adopted for another thousand years or so in areas of southern China and Southeast Asia. "You have relatively happy hunter-gatherer-fishers who don't want to put in the effort" to farm rice until population density requires it, Fuller explains.

As the human population swells—as seen in the record of fertilizer use in Europe and Asia—the resources then become more intensively used. This is not confined to agriculture; archaeologists find a similar intensification in the hunting patterns of Paleolithic Europeans after the decline of big game. These proto-Europeans began to hunt a wider range of smaller animals more intensively as well as developing the food preparation technology to extract more food from a larger array of sources. This idea further suggests that humanity has escaped time and time again from the Malthusian trap of population colliding with limited resources by transforming the relationship between human population and the environment through technology, whether through the invention of cooking or modern mechanized agriculture. Humanity simply applies technology to derive more from a given resource, whether it be copper or farmland.

That trend continues into the present day, the researchers argue. The most modern industrial agriculture focuses primarily on the best land it can get. The human population has shifted away from subsistence and low productivity agriculture, collecting in cities as fossil-fueled machines help fewer farmers work the land. "The next revolution is when the majority of people get into cities and are fed by a minority," Fuller explains. This process is already complete in industrialized countries where less than 1 percent of the population feeds the rest, but "we're not finished with that yet," in developing countries such as China and India, Fuller says. Peak farmland may be imminent.

If the human impact is longstanding and widespread, then the landscape is as much in recovery from past impacts as it is enduring new changes. Think of the cutting back of the Amazon rainforest—itself potentially a recovery from earlier, more intensive human use before the arrival of Europeans—versus the regrowth of the forests of the eastern U.S. In fact, the woodland ecosystems of Europe and South America commonly thought of as natural may be the legacy of prior human use. "Most of the forest have had people in them, interacting with them and transplanting species around for thousands of years," Fuller notes. "We have very little in the way of natural forests, which doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to reforest environments and have forests." After all, the modern phase of the Anthropocene may be the first time humans can choose intentionally what an appropriate level of impact might be.

Fully answering this question of how long the human impact on land has been widespread requires a broader global synthesis of the archaeological and paleoecological data on human population and land use. Most of that data is available—and has been examined—in a local rather than global context, such as the impacts of humans on the Yucatan Peninsula or Australia. Nevertheless, what data exists suggests that this is a "used planet," in the words of the authors. "We've been husbanding these biomes and creating our own types of ecologies—the cultivated lands, the rangelands—we've been doing this for a very long time," Ellis argues. "We've been living in that Anthropocene biosphere since prehistory."