The Largest Minority

May 15th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

This completely unreported bit of information on the recent polar bear classification is provided to us by Greenpeace Global Warming Campaigner Melanie Duchin. For more, read Polar Bear Listing Falls Short of Protection.

It’s taken several years, lawsuits, and thousands of letters from you, but the Bush Administration finally listed the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act today. I’d love to tell you that that’s great news, but there’s a BIG catch. The Administration listed the polar bear as threatened instead of endangered, and invoked a clause (known as a “4(d) exemption”) that excludes global warming from the list of threats the federal government has to consider when trying to protect polar bear habitat.

Global warming is the biggest threat facing polar bears today, and this little clause eliminates any protection the listing should have given to the polar bear. In fact, global warming is the very reason we sued the Administration for protection of the polar bear in the first place.

So who’s really being protected here? Polar bears or the oil industry?

The listing specifically says that federal agencies don’t need to consider the impact of global warming pollution on the polar bear. But there’s more: the listing also proposes a separate regulation that reduces the protections the polar bear would otherwise receive under the Endangered Species Act.

Meanwhile, in the months leading up to this weak decision, the Administration conveniently sold oil leases in prime polar bear habitat off Alaska’s northwest coast.

Are you starting to get the picture here? Well, if your temperature is rising like mine is, there are a couple of things I’d like you to do about it:

• First, join our new Rapid Response Network. Here’s how it works: we will send you a pop up notice about breaking news stories like this, as well as an easy way to click to promote the article to the Most Popular list of sites like CNN, Reuters, Yahoo News and a dozen other online media outlets. If you have just 5 minutes to spare each week, you have time to be a Rapid Responder!
• Next, please consider a donation today to help us fight for polar bears and ramp up our campaigns to stop global warming. We’re not going to stand by and let the Administration get away with this, and I hope you won’t either.

Despite the loopholes the Bush Administration has inserted, it is crystal clear that without your tremendous support, they would have continued to ignore the polar bear until it disappeared altogether. I thank you for your determination and continued support.

For the future of polar bear,
Melanie Duchin

May 12th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

It’s fairly common knowledge by now that ethanol increases global warming, is worse to your health than gasoline, and inflates food prices, but what about second generation ethanol that uses cellulose rather than the edible portion of food crops?

On the surface, it may seem resourceful to convert that corn cob into energy, but our hunger for fuel goes far beyond what inedible food scraps can provide. In fact, second generation ethanol is perhaps even more dangerous than first generation ethanol under the simple understanding that if all plant matter is a potential fuel then all forests are potential gold mines for the fuel industry.

US incentives for ethanol production have already contributed to massive deforestation in places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Amazon, where rainforests are being cleared to grow biofuel crops. Cellulose ethanol would further promote this destruction by using the forest itself for fuel.

Americans love the idea that they won’t need to sacrifice. There is no incentive to curb your consumption if science will save you by replacing that fuel in your inefficient internal combustion engine with another. Turning CO₂-absorbing trees into gasoline is not progress. It’s just as insane as burning food to run a car. The only clean energies have always been wind, solar, and water. Eyes back on the prize folks. The goal should be to get off of all fuels entirely.

May 8th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

While many studies have shown that GM foods pose serious health and contamination risks, a new study carried out for three years at the University of Kansas has shown that genetically modified crops also produce less food. This dispels the great corporate myth, perpetuated by the Department of Agriculture, that GM technology is necessary to solve world hunger.

Professor Barney Gordon, of the university’s department of agronomy, began the study when farmers who had switched over to the GM crop had noticed that even under optimal conditions their yields were not as high as expected. The yields of GM soybean were 10 percent less than those of an almost identical conventional variety grown in the same field.

The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a “decrease” in yields.

But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.

The Kansas study suggested that genetic modification hindered the soya’s ability to absorb manganese from the soil. However, even when additional manganese was added, the GM soya yield was only able to equal that of the conventional crop, failing to surpass it as promised.

Low yields have also been seen with other GM plants, such as cotton, where the total US crop declined as GM technology took over the industry. To counter the embarrassing results, Monsanto falsely claimed that the GM soybeans used in the study were not modified to increase yields, but said it was now developing one that would. Last week, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.

source

May 6th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Cyclone Nargis slammed Burma on Saturday, killing more than 14,000 people so far. The death toll nationwide in Burma makes Cyclone Nargis the most devastating natural disaster in Southeast Asia since the December 2004 tsunami.

Burma residents say they had little warning of the cyclone from the ruling junta, and claim the government is tending only to rich areas.

The U.S. Embassy is providing $250,000 in immediate aid from existing emergency fund. But first lady Laura Bush said Monday the U.S. would provide further aid only if one of its own disaster teams is allowed into the country.

The European Commission was providing $3 million in humanitarian aid while the president of neighboring China, Hu Jintao, promised $1 million in cash and supplies.

To which Burma said; “Wow, $250,000 whole dollars!? That’s almost enough to rebuild a couple houses. Thanks Bush administration. New Orleans told us we could count on you.”

source

April 25th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

The Axis of Evo is at it again! At a UN forum on indigenous issues, Bolivian President Evo Morales called for a global economic overhaul.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the forces destroying our planet knows that Morales is exactly right when he says: “If we want to save the planet earth, to save life and humanity; we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system.” As much as Al Gore and GE would like you to believe, we can’t simply purchase our way out of this problem by buying more efficient products.

Capitalism depends on consumption, but the future of our species depends on conservation. We must embrace a democratic economic system which does not rely on the exploitation of workers and resources if we want to survive. Like watermelons, true environmentalists are green on the outside and red on the inside.

What do the capitalists propose we do to save the environment? Strict property rights. And they say socialists are crazy (well maybe, but at least we’re not stupid).

April 14th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Cynthia McKinney, who’s running for the Green Party nomination, stopped by the Zero Point Art Space in South Los Angeles on April 12th to talk with Los Angeles Greens.

McKinney also references American Blackout, which is a must see for every citizen.

March 26th, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Antarctica’s Wilkins Ice Shelf is a 5000 square mile sheet of permanent floating ice off of Antarctica’s southwest peninsula which has been in place for at least a few hundred years. Satellite images are now showing that a large hunk of the shelf is disintegrating as a result of global climate change, which effects temperature on the continent more dramatically than anywhere else on the planet.

“Block after block of ice is just tumbling and crumbling into the ocean,” Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said.

“The shelf is not just cracking off and a piece goes drifting away, but totally shattering. These kinds of events, we don’t see them very often. But we want to understand them better because these are the things that lead to a complete loss of the ice shelf.”

Mr Scambos said a large part of the ice shelf was now supported by only a thin strip of ice. This last “ice buttress” could collapse and about half the total ice shelf area could be lost in the next few years, he added.

British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan said: “This shelf is hanging by a thread.”

read more… 

March 3rd, 2008 by Manila Ryce

Hat tip to Kimberly Wilder for sending me this interview with her and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. McKinney is running for the presidency and seems likely to get the Green Party nomination now that Nader has announced he will be running as an Independent. McKinney, who use to be a Democrat, describes how she became Green after she was betrayed by her own party (much like Dennis Kucinich) for being too truthful and courageous.

This interview took place on February 21st, the anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X, at the Audubon Ballroom where he was martyred. McKinney took part in a discussion about Malcolm that day which you can find here. If you feel the need to belong to a political party, I suggest checking out the Green Party.