I was walking to the bookstore and I heard this guy outside a coffee shop say:
“Trees make the air we breathe
the air is really nasty
trees suuuuccckkkk”
Cities pursuing sustainability, livability and more with “complete streets”
From The Washington Post:
For the past century, city streets have been designed to ease automobile traffic flow. But in recent years, sustainability and livability have become buzz words as policymakers seek ways to reduce congestion and pollution and improve the health of residents. They have become increasingly aware that getting more people on the street boosts public safety, raises property value and brings in more businesses.
In and around Los Angeles, where cars outnumber people on the streets and freeways and multi-lane roads divide neighborhoods, efforts are under way to reverse the refrain “Nobody Walks In LA” that was sung by the 1980s band Missing Persons. They include a plan to make over Figueroa Street, a major downtown artery for vehicle traffic, for pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders.
…
The shift toward building “complete streets” reflects a broader change in federal government policy. Last year, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued new guidelines that moved to end “favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized” by including cyclist and pedestrian needs in new road projects.
Check out the rest of the article here.
(Image credit: GOOD)
It’s about time we start moving away from this auto-mobile oriented design for cities. Human scale is back in walkability, which is the best way to be more sustainable because it invites individuals out of their cars into more environmentally forms of transportation (walking, biking, etc.) . Now this needs to be a massive revolution in Urban Design.
As someone who’s both community organized for Complete Streets and has bike commuted for over ten years, I’d say that this is awesome.
(via sprnvasidra)
Beekeeper Who Leaked EPA Documents: “I Don’t Think We Can Survive This Winter”
Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald never expected to become embroiled in a controversy between the EPA and the pesticide industry. But that’s exactly what happened when Theobald got hold of an EPA document revealing that the agency is allowing the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, in spite of warnings from EPA scientists.
So how did Theobald (pictured above) end up with such a contentious document?
Bayer, the corporation behind clothianidin (the pesticide in question), published a life cycle study about it in 2006 at the EPA’s request. The study was flawed—test and control fields were, for example, planted as close as 968 feet apart. But the EPA continued to allow the use of clothianidin, which has been on the market since 2003 for use on corn, canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat (and which has been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects on bees, birds, and other species).
Fast forward to this year. Theobald wrote an article in the July issue of Bee Culture about clothianidin. Then an employee at the EPA called Theobald to tell him the article had led the EPA to review the pesticide’s original life cycle study before approving clothianidin for use on cotton and mustard.
“They told me that EPA scientists had reviewed the original lifecycle study and determined it wasn’t scientifically sound, and I asked if it had been documented, if there was a hard copy,” he says, “The [employee] said yes, and I asked if I could get a copy.” And just like that, he had the proof he needed that the EPA had overlooked something that could be killing America’s bees.
“Everybody is keyed on the leaked memo, but basically it’s a public document,” adds Theobald. He just happened to be the first one to learn about it and ask for it. “The shock was that they did the study at all.”
Theobald has been concerned about clothianidin since it was first released in 2003. The pesticide is a neonicotinoid—a type of insecticide that disrupts the central nervous system of insects. Imidacloprid, the first neonicotinoid to be released in the U.S., came on the market in 1994, and began raising red flags soon after. France banned imidacloprid in 2003 due to concerns of bee die-off triggered by the substance.
Now the stakes are higher than ever. Tom Theobald’s honey crop this year is the smallest he’s seen in 35 years of beekeeping. “This is the critical winter for the beekeeping industry. I don’t think we can survive,” he says. “If the beekeeping industry collapses, it jeopardizes a third of American agriculture.”
That’s because the giant agriculture industry couldn’t produce nearly as much with native bee pollinators alone; instead, the industry relies on beekeepers, who rent out their bees to pollinate everything from strawberries and blueberries to squash and cucumbers.
As of today, the EPA has no plans to ban clothianidin in the U.S. Theobald hopes that all the press surrounding the issue will trigger the agency to change its mind. It has to, he says. “The EPA management needs to step forward, face the music, take its lumps and do things right. If they continue to try to bury this, they’re going to look more pathetic than they do already.”
Earlier: Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Document Shows It Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees
You too can add to the public pressure felt by the EPA. - And it IS effective!
(via custerdiedforyoursins)
There’s this one quote from an environmental ethics paper I really like, but I can’t remember the exact wording, the author, or the article title.
Basically the author showed how difficult it can be to offer moral reasons to preserve the environment and instead advocated a sort of virtue ethical framework. She brought up a passage from Kant* where he said that some actions are not immoral, but we can still judge them as not-beautiful.
Anyways, the quote was something like “Perhaps we could do with fewer moral actions and more beautiful ones.”
*Kant’s outdated example was to say that kicking a dog is not immoral, but it lacks beauty/virtue.
Rick MacPherson - Coral Reef Alliance (via avillago78) - a great speech - and check out the HUGE knitted coral reef in the background!
I have seen people in the vegan community talking a lot about Bill Clinton and whether or not he is vegan, when he has admitted to eating a bit of fish still. (Just so you know where I stand, he is not a vegan) Some vegans think that those of us who oppose him using this label are being overly sensitive, but I ask you to consider this…
1) Veganism is not a diet. It is a way of living to avoid as much cruelty in your life as possible. Eating a vegan diet, is only half the recipe. Vegans commit to not wearing products derived from animal cruelty as well. So his diet has changed, his way of living has not. So that means he is not a vegan. It would be the same as someone calling themselves a feminist meanwhile actively partaking in the oppression of women by telling sexist jokes. It just doesn’t add up right.
2) As someone who worked for a decade in the food service industry I can attest to the fact that people making these ‘allowances’ really does confuse the issue within the industry as to what actually qualifies as ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’ when labeling dishes. I have seen items containing fish and chicken (usually broth) labeled as vegetarian, and dishes with dairy or honey labeled as ‘vegan’. And this confusion is only fed by those claiming to be vegetarian or vegan while eating items that are not. So this makes things unnecessarily difficult, because someone wishes to call themselves something they are not. Which is something I also do not understand, but I won’t get into that now…
Now I understand this is only my opinion, but I thought since so many others were speaking up on this topic, I would add my two cents. Thanks for listening…or rather reading…
Emphatically on 2. Its a huge pet peeve of mine when people cling to labels they’re not and I’ve argued with so many people before on this. “I only eat a little meat! I’m mostly vegan!” “Fish isn’t an animal so I’m a vegetarian.” “I don’t eat meat, stock or broth isn’t meat.”…. What’s so hard to understand that in you desperately wanting to fit a neat tidy label, but being unable to adhere to the neat, tidy label, that you’re fucking up said neat tidy label for the rest of us? If you eat meat at.all. in any of its forms (yes, even your happy ‘humane’/’free range’/’organic’ meat counts), you’re an omnivore. End of story. As fish doesn’t come from trees, bushes, nor roots, yeah it counts. If you eat dairy products at all, you’re just a vegetarian. If you consume honey at all, technically you’re a beegan. And if you’re a ‘vegan’ who can handle not eating these things but still wears leather, wool, buys products tested on animals and full of their products, etc.* you’re a strict vegetarian. If you get past all this, congrats, you win the coveted ‘vegan’ label. Your prize is being called an asshole at every turn before you even open your mouth. This has been your lesson in terminology brought to you by supersoygrrrl.
* Obviously, if you have actual reasons for being unable to fulfill all of this, no sane vegans going to jump down your throat. Your wool coat the only coat you have and you have no money for a new one? Fine. You need medicine that contains animal products? Fine. You can’t afford to switch everything overnight? Fine. Veganism is about doing what you can to the best of your ability not strict dogma. But you really liked those shoes and they only came in leather? No. You really love this brand of eye shadow but it contains fish scales but you can’t give it up? No. Its the best of your abilities, not the best of what you want to cling to.
i’m going to preface this with the acknowledgment that i’m no expert on sustainable agriculture or animal husbandry. i’m also not a vegan, and i’m not even a vegetarian - although i do try to avoid eating meat, it still happens two or three times a month on my grad school diet (read: eat whatever free shit there is because it’s free).
so, i see the obvious connection between veganism and decreasing animal cruelty. by not supporting the industries that exploit animals for their meat, eggs, milk, skin, etc., you’re voicing your disdain for those practices. that’s cool. but the fact of the matter is that these animals we’re using have been domesticated over the course of thousands of years. say we all become vegans (and correct me if i’m wrong that the goal of veganism isn’t to have everyone forgo animal products). what will we do with all the farm animals? a sad consequence of domestication is that these animals lack survival skills. if left in the wild, they’re going to be hunted and eaten by natural predators.
what would be crueler: leaving these animals to die, or raising them, but in a respectful environment? by going vegan, you’re avoiding big industry farming, where animals are treated most cruelly, and that is good - but you’re also avoiding ALL farming, even types of farming where animals are treated with respect and taken good care of.
it seems to me that supporting farmers who are practicing respectful, sustainable farming methods is the way to change the big farming industry for the better. the end goal: by showing that we consumers won’t support raising animals in terrible, inhumane conditions, we’ll force these big companies to adopt stricter standards for raising animals. at the very least, supporting farms who are treating animals humanely keeps those farms in business at all - otherwise, it’s likely they’ll be beat out of the business by big companies who are able to charge less because they devote fewer resources to making sure animals are raised humanely.
in short, being a non-consumer won’t help change big industry, but being a selective consumer can.
thoughts?
“What’s so hard to understand that in you desperately wanting to fit a neat tidy label, but being unable to adhere to the neat, tidy label, that you’re fucking up said neat tidy label for the rest of us?”
Or maybe the label should never have been that strict to begin with.
It’s telling that you’ve already conceded one reason why a person could be called vegan while partaking in animal products. What happened to the “neat tidy label” if we give exemptions for financial necessity? Why not simply say that these people are not vegan, or are not vegan yet, but there is nothing wrong with that?
“Veganism is about doing what you can to the best of your ability not strict dogma.” But you just admonished people for not strictly adhering to the ”neat tidy label.”
Are there other “actual reasons” why someone could be exempted from this strict definition aside from financial hardship? What if I, as a Chamorro, want to take part in a traditional spearfishing trip, could I still be vegan? Doing so would not be a financial necessity, but at the same time it would be much less frivolous than wanting to wear a certain pair of nice shoes.
“Its the best of your abilities, not the best of what you want to cling to.” What if what the things I want to cling to are the traditional hunting practices of my ancestors? Veganism wouldn’t allow it? If it would, then we have another example of how the “neat tidy label” isn’t as neat and tidy as we might think.
(via reaganing)
Last month I interviewed Jack Norris of Vegan Outreach. I began the interview with this quote from Matt Ball, the co-founder of that group:
…“The Vegan Shuffle”
Reading that speech by Matt Ball made me wonder why Vegan Outreach was so intent on promoting veganism. If their only concern…
This sort of supports my idea that vegetarianism shouldn’t be such an absolute concept. Maybe it could even be a family resemblance term?
While this statement is valid enough, I see it used in all sorts of bad arguments.
Some make this claim to justify eating meat, some use it to argue against using technology.
It’s true that we aren’t intrinsically better than other animals, but does this mean that we should live like them? Actually, I shouldn’t even say “animals” because there are species of plants, fungae, etc. too!
Should we live like other primates? Mammals? Chordates? Maybe we should switch to a Tardigrade lifestyle.
There are roughly ten viruses for every other species of animal on Earth, so if we go by a majority vote should we live like them?
There certainly are other species of organisms that would destroy their own ecosystems if they could.
One way in which we are not just another species is that we have a choice to change our lifestyles to a more sustainable one.
“The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.
This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these ‘resources,’ but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.” - Aldo Leopold
So last night I watched an extremely disturbing documentary called the cove, here’s the description from the wiki page:
The Cove is a 2009 American documentary film that describes the annual killing of dolphins in a National Park at Taiji, Wakayama, in Japan from an anti–dolphin-hunting campaigner’s point of view.[3][4] The film highlights the fact that the number of dolphins killed in the Taiji dolphin hunting drive is several times greater than the number of whales killed in the Antarctic, and reports that 23,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed in Japan every year in the country’s whaling industry. The migrating dolphins are herded into a hidden cove where they are netted and killed by means of spears and knives over the side of small fishing boats.
It became clear as the film went on that the government were involved with these fishermen. Most lowly fishermen cannot afford a diving team to search under the waves to ensure nothing’s there, nor could they afford the high tech sound epuipment used to lure these poor creatures into the bay. The dolphin meat was also being used as school lunch meat, but hey wait that isn’t the most disturbing part yet!
The dolphin meat is highly contaminated with mercury, a highly toxic substance. Many years ago the documentary told of the town of Minamata, where mercury poising (or minamata disease as it was dubbed) claimed many people and caused many babies to be born deformed. E.G below.
Mercury attacks the brain. Slowly destroying neurones, meaning that those suffering slowly lose senses, control and receptivness. There was a particularly poignant part of the film where a man from the town is on a stage, crying profusely, telling of the woes of these children ‘being born that will never see, will never hear, never taste…’.
So unwittingly not only were these fishermen not just killing beautiful and intelligent animals, they were also poisoning the people of their town.
Back onto government cover ups, when in a meeting with many different countries it was interesting to note that many of the very poorest countries agreed with the killing of dolphins. Hm.
In the meeting many defended the continued killing by saying that ‘killing time had improved’ when infact these men were spearing and stabbing these dolphins with little to no regard.
THIS KILLING IS DISGUSTING AT THE VERY LEAST AND IS HARMING THEIR OWN PEOPLE TOO. PLEASE REBLOG. DONATE. ANYTHING.
You can find more on the website, dontate to the OPS here:
https://opsociety.worldsecuresystems.com/securedonation.htm
Write to leaders:
http://www.takepart.com/writetoourleaders
Or read about the documentary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cove_%28film%29
thanks.
REBLOG REBLOG REBLOG
The cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world’s biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, a major unpublished study for the United Nations has found.
The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.
Later this year, another huge UN study - dubbed the “Stern for nature” after the influential report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern - will attempt to put a price on such global environmental damage, and suggest ways to prevent it. The report, led by economist Pavan Sukhdev, is likely to argue for abolition of billions of dollars of subsidies to harmful industries like agriculture, energy and transport, tougher regulations and more taxes on companies that cause the damage.
I’m pretty thoroughly convinced that externalities like these are necessary for the functioning of the economy, and that terrifies me.
Yup. If the environmental costs were pushed on to the consumer then suddenly most goods would be unaffordable for a lot of people. Instead, the costs are being incurred for another generation to deal with.
I just finished reading up on Deep Ecology for class. One of the most exciting things I’ve read all year.
![mohandaskgandhi:
Beekeeper Who Leaked EPA Documents: “I Don’t Think We Can Survive This Winter”
Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald never expected to become embroiled in a controversy between the EPA and the pesticide industry. But that’s exactly what happened when Theobald got hold of an EPA document revealing that the agency is allowing the widespread use of a bee-toxic pesticide, in spite of warnings from EPA scientists.
So how did Theobald (pictured above) end up with such a contentious document?
Bayer, the corporation behind clothianidin (the pesticide in question), published a life cycle study about it in 2006 at the EPA’s request. The study was flawed—test and control fields were, for example, planted as close as 968 feet apart. But the EPA continued to allow the use of clothianidin, which has been on the market since 2003 for use on corn, canola, soy, sugar beets, sunflowers, and wheat (and which has been banned by Germany, France, Italy, and Slovenia for its toxic effects on bees, birds, and other species).
Fast forward to this year. Theobald wrote an article in the July issue of Bee Culture about clothianidin. Then an employee at the EPA called Theobald to tell him the article had led the EPA to review the pesticide’s original life cycle study before approving clothianidin for use on cotton and mustard.
“They told me that EPA scientists had reviewed the original lifecycle study and determined it wasn’t scientifically sound, and I asked if it had been documented, if there was a hard copy,” he says, “The [employee] said yes, and I asked if I could get a copy.” And just like that, he had the proof he needed that the EPA had overlooked something that could be killing America’s bees.
“Everybody is keyed on the leaked memo, but basically it’s a public document,” adds Theobald. He just happened to be the first one to learn about it and ask for it. “The shock was that they did the study at all.”
Theobald has been concerned about clothianidin since it was first released in 2003. The pesticide is a neonicotinoid—a type of insecticide that disrupts the central nervous system of insects. Imidacloprid, the first neonicotinoid to be released in the U.S., came on the market in 1994, and began raising red flags soon after. France banned imidacloprid in 2003 due to concerns of bee die-off triggered by the substance.
Now the stakes are higher than ever. Tom Theobald’s honey crop this year is the smallest he’s seen in 35 years of beekeeping. “This is the critical winter for the beekeeping industry. I don’t think we can survive,” he says. “If the beekeeping industry collapses, it jeopardizes a third of American agriculture.”
That’s because the giant agriculture industry couldn’t produce nearly as much with native bee pollinators alone; instead, the industry relies on beekeepers, who rent out their bees to pollinate everything from strawberries and blueberries to squash and cucumbers.
As of today, the EPA has no plans to ban clothianidin in the U.S. Theobald hopes that all the press surrounding the issue will trigger the agency to change its mind. It has to, he says. “The EPA management needs to step forward, face the music, take its lumps and do things right. If they continue to try to bury this, they’re going to look more pathetic than they do already.”
Earlier: Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Document Shows It Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees
You too can add to the public pressure felt by the EPA. - And it IS effective!](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldee0rOpMj1qzhl7go1_500.jpg)
