One More Time – Here Is A Video That Tells It Like It Is When It Comes To The Serious Threat This Thing Government Reps Call “Biodiversity Offsetting” Poses To Niagara’s Natural Wetlands

GR:  Experience has taught me that most governments represent business interests dominated by desire for short-term profits and growth-at-all-costs.  When individuals take public office, their new power over the wealth of the people elevates them to the society of investors and developers. Rather than becoming advisers that help the wealthy control their avarice, they become students and tools of the wealthy.  Whatever original thoughts they had about stability and sustainability fade away. There are exceptions, but they are rare and fleeting.

The only solution is heavy public participation and opposition to development proposals.  Without overwhelming threats from large numbers of people, individuals in governments will be most strongly influenced by their new society—the rich and ambitious.  Activism is the answer.

The following is by Doug Draper.

“The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority – a government body created by the Province of Ontario decades ago and stacked with board members appointed by municipal governments in the region – is floating the idea of destroying at least some of that’s left of Niagara’s natural wetlands to make way for more development.
Only about 10 to 15 per cent of Niagara’s wetlands – vital to the survival of many birds, fish and other wildlife – remain in Niagara and a regional ‘Conservation Authority” is now looking at “offsetting” to make way for development. Photo by Doug Draper

“Only about 10 to 15 per cent of Niagara’s wetlands – vital to the survival of many birds, fish and other wildlife – remain in Niagara and a regional ‘Conservation Authority” is now looking at “offsetting” to make way for development. Photo by Doug Draper

“The NPCA says it is thinking of taking this idea to the provincial government for approval under the guise of something called “biodiversity offsetting” which involves (as best as one can determine from an explanation offered by Conservation Authority’s chief administrative officer Carmen D’Angelo at a public meeting this January) replacing some wetland for development and replacing it somewhere else with something the same or similar that someone would construct.
More than 200 citizens attended the January meeting, many of them to express their concern or outright opposition to the idea. And when one citizen asked NPCA representatives flat out for a definition of “biodiversity offsetting,” one Conservation Authority member stood to say they do not yet have a full definition of the term.” niagaraatlarge.com

Welcome to the Renewable Energy Renaissance — Fight to End Fossil Fuel Burning is Now On

“Nevada Monopoly Fossil Fuels vs Solar Fight Goes National

“An example of this struggle in microcosm took place during December through January of 2015 in Nevada. Emboldened by similar decisions in Arizona, monopoly utilities moved to protect their carbon-polluting infrastructures by pushing the state government (made up of a majority of republicans to include the governor — Sandoval) to impose restrictive fees on solar energy use throughout the state. Targeting rooftop solar energy systems, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUCN — also made up entirely of republicans) voted to, across the board, increase costs for rooftop solar users by both slashing incentives and imposing draconian fees. The decision negatively impacted 12,000 current solar customers using rooftop power to include families, schools and even public libraries.”  From: robertscribbler.com

GR:  In this war, powerless individuals are facing powerful business-backed governments. Our avaricious nature has brought us to this pass, but now that we’re here, we’re probably going to have to change our habits and take action.  In this post, Robert Scribbler, provides some strategic insight.

Groups Sue Over North Carolina’s Ag Gag Law, Saying It Violates The Constitution

“Last year, North Carolina made it nearly impossible for citizens to legally gather evidence on and report instances of wrongdoing — animals being mistreated by farm workers, for instance, or pollution being dumped into a stream. Now, a group of organizations is suing over the law, saying it tramples on North Carolinians’ constitutional rights.

“In the lawsuit, filed this week against North Carolina’s attorney general, the groups allege that North Carolina’s House Bill 405 “attacks the core values embodied by the federal and state constitutional protections of speech and the press” and “should be declared unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.” The law in question allows business owners to sue people who take photos, video, or any other data from their property without their consent. That in and of itself presents constitutional questions, but it’s the law’s breadth that’s so concerning, said lead council for the case David Muraskin.

“This is a law designed to gag North Carolinian citizens,” Muraskin, a food safety and health attorney at Public Justice, said. “If you have a parent in a nursing home or a child in daycare, you should be concerned about this law.”   thinkprogress.org

GR:  If you suspect someone’s behavior is dangerous you should report it.  But if you see potentially dangerous or illegal activity by a farmer in North Carolina, you can go to jail for reporting it.

If Golden Globes Host Ricky Gervais Gives Out Prestigious Awards to His Favorite Animal Abusers

  1. Worst Performance as a “Conservationist” 2. Worst Supporting Actress to the Above Jerk 3. Lifetime of Cruelty in Entertainment Achievement Award 4. Worst Original Idea to Abuse Animals for Sport 5.  From: exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com

GR:  Applaud this celebrity for making an effort that most of our elected leaders avoid. It’s great that the award show organizers allowed Ricky Gervais the time to do this.  Definitely worth a look.

How the Paris Agreement Falls Short – from Our Children’s Trust

Our Children's TrustEmail from The Children’s Trust:

Why the Paris Agreement Falls Short

GR:  The Paris Agreement does not call for action soon enough to avoid catastrophic change.  Please sign the petition.
“Dear Friends,
Recent reports are touting the Paris Agreement as “an historic international climate accord,” and a “big step forward.” President Obama says the Agreement could be “a turning point for the world,” and that we can now be “more confident that this planet will be in better shape for the next generation.” Sadly, it’s true that the Paris Agreement––which obliges 196 countries to work collaboratively in an effort to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels––is technically “progress” compared to the status quo. But the simple fact is: the Agreement does not come close to what is needed to stop the destruction of our climate system and protect our children and future generations.

“The Agreement is woefully lacking—both in terms of substance and enforceability. Even if the signatories actually followed through with all of their respective carbon-cutting commitments, the planet would be on pace for a temperature increase well in excess of the stated goals of 2 and 1.5 degrees. But there’s no reason to believe countries will actually keep their commitments, given that the Agreement prescribes no enforcement mechanism. In our President’s own words: “the problem’s not solved by this accord.”

“At Our Children’s Trust, we would like nothing more than a chance to revere an enforceable, substantive, and science-based pact signed and enacted by our world leaders; but if what we want is a stable climate and the seas to stop rising, we have to be brutally honest about what the Agreement actually achieves and where we are at because of it.

“Here are the top three reasons why we think the
Paris Agreement falls short:
  1. The Agreement does not commit any nation to any specific level of emissions reduction. The Agreement merely “invites” and “requests” that nations set nationally determined contributions toward emissions reduction. Analysis by a German team and an MIT team say the plans of 187 countries submitted prior to the Paris Conference (90% of all CO2 emissions), if followed, would lead to between 2.7 degrees or 3.5 degrees C of warming. The world’s existing plans under this Agreement, therefore, come nowhere close to reaching the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees C, or 1.5 degrees C – let alone a safe level of warming, which should be no more than 1 degree C long-term.
  2. And the kicker: the Agreement imposes no firm date when nations must start reducing emissions nor does it prescribe any timeline or trajectory on which those reductions should take place. The Agreement does not demand that nations reduce emissions NOW; it encourages them to resubmit their voluntary reductions in three years and start reducing by 2020. We don’t have this kind of time!
  3. The Agreement does not create legally binding or enforceable emission reductions. John Kerry stated that the Agreement has no “mandatory scheme and doesn’t have a compliance enforcement mechanism.”
What others are saying about the Agreement:

“Federal Plaintiff, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez of Earth Guardians: “The documents are signed and COP 21 has come to an end. Another year of gathering for the Conference of Parties come and gone. And still, after 21 years of meetings. After 21 years of destruction. After 21 years of exponential increases in climate destruction across the globe. After 21 years of the increased suffering of front-line and indigenous communities, people of color, women and children, these agreements are still not enough. . . .The evidence is clear. The science is present. The stories are being told. Lives are being lost. Communities being destroyed. People being displaced. Forests burning. Seas rising. Glaciers melting. Islands sinking into the ocean. Unprecedented floods and droughts devastating communities. This is not a game. This is not about politics. This is not about leadership. This is not about money. It’s not even about the environment anymore. This is about every living person and creature on the planet, our lives and our safety being threatened by the greatest issue of our time, climate change. All this and it still isn’t enough. Not enough has already been lost to show our world leaders that they need to make significant change to reverse the affects of climate change and prevent further destruction. But for the first time in history, we have a global agreement on climate change. And it is a start, but isn’t enough. It is a step in the right direction.”

Federal Plaintiff and climate scientist Dr. James Hansen: “There is no action, just promises.”

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The conference “delivered more of the same—lots of promises and lots of issues still left unresolved. . . . None of the commitments made…are binding, and many aren’t even complete. Moreover, Congress must appropriate any funds that the Obama administration has pledged.”

“The American Petroleum Institute, which is fighting our Youth Plaintiffs in court: “The U.S. shale boom — with its massive quantities of natural gas, . . . as deserving of at least some credit behind the drop in domestic carbon output in recent years.” And “We will closely scrutinize the COP 21 agreement to see how it references the U.S. model of reducing emissions through technological innovation and increased use of natural gas.” Wow, no complaints about the Paris Agreement from the fossil fuel industry?

The Guardian’s George Monbiot: “By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.”

“Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org: “Every government seems now to recognize that the fossil fuel era must end and soon. But the power of the fossil fuel industry is reflected in the text, which drags out the transition so far that endless climate damage will be done.”

“Presidential Candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders: “[The Paris Agreement] goes nowhere near far enough.”

***
“So many from civil society, including our youth, alongside bold leaders from some nations and many indigenous communities, gave a valiant effort to push for a transformative Agreement, and we are grateful for their leadership and for being there on behalf of us all. The public awareness and movement that continue to grow as a result of so much work is critical. But let’s all be crystal clear so that we never get complacent: the Paris Agreement is not a solution to our climate crisis. Instead, we must have binding and enforceable domestic and international commitments that limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, with a long-term maximum of 1 degree C over the pre-industrial era.

“That is why Our Children’s Trust supports youth seeking legally-binding and enforceable, science-based climate recovery action in the courts. No more waiting. No more negotiating away our children’s future. The judiciary must act now to avert the largest intergenerational injustice the world has ever known.“Please sign this petition in support of youth’s efforts to secure legally binding science-based climate action, as we all continue our quests toward a healthy atmosphere and stable climate on behalf all present and future generations.

“Thank you for all you do to help us elevate the voice of youth and to secure their inalienable rights, and those of future generations.”

Your OCT team,

Julia, Meg, Elizabeth, Nate, Lou and Coreal

Activist calls for removal of leg-hold traps on public lands

Trapping, hunting, livestock grazing, logging, mining, and more are the ways that public land is used. Not for the sake of the land or its creatures, but for the benefit of one species. And not even in the best interests of that species, land use of the public land has never been sustainable; it has always been destructive. Our schools do not tell our children about nature, and our leaders whose “beliefs” are determined by the finances of special interests deny it. A century and a half ago, Humboldt, Thoreau, Marsh, and others recognized and alerted us to the demise of nature in the name of progress and profit. Blocked by our leaders, the message has been repeated by Leopold, Abbey, Wilson and others whose wisdom is no match for human avarice and impatience.

Demonstrate for an End to Global Warming

Climate-change demonstrations show our leaders that we want them to take steps to stop global warming. We must also ask our leaders to change the human activities that are causing climate change.

  1. We want them to block corporate control over our government and the decisions it makes.
  2. We want them to end international sales of weapons and begin to encourage peace and a focus on life style and resource use.
  3. We want them to discourage unsustainable resource harvests.
  4. We want them to encourage human rights and equality.
  5. We want them to speak out for wild animals and natural ecosystems.
  6. We want them to call for restoring the damaged lands and seas.
  7. And finally, we want them to oppose gender inequality and overpopulation.

Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, activities causing climate change would continue. Farming, deforestation, industrial fishing, desertification, construction, and growth of the human population would continue to waste the Earth and release CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

822e6515-ef8b-4ba3-840b-8d4921eca1b6.jpg

e867c623-988a-4361-ae66-a2bc07c7ba96.jpg

American Youths File Landmark Climate Lawsuit Against President Obama & U.S. Government

On August 12, International Youth Day, 21 young people from across the United States filed a landmark constitutional climate change lawsuit against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Also acting as a plaintiff is world-renowned climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, serving as guardian for future generations and for his granddaughter, and Earth Guardians, representing young citizen beneficiaries of the public trust. The complaint asserts that, in causing climate change, the federal government has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and has failed to protect essential public trust resources.

“The complaint alleges the federal government is violating the youth’s constitutional rights by promoting the development and use of fossil fuels. These young plaintiffs are challenging the federal government’s national fossil fuel programs, as well as the proposed Jordan Cove LNG export terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon. The plaintiffs seek to hold President Obama and various federal agencies responsible for continued fossil fuel exploitation. The federal government has known for decades that fossil fuels are destroying the climate system. No less important than in the civil rights cases, the plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the president to immediately implement a national plan to decrease atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to a safe level: 350ppm by the year 2100.”  From: www.alternet.org

Photo:  Dr. James Hansen and one of the plaintiffs, his granddaughter Sophie.

GR:  Here’s the latest I’ve seen:

November 12, 2015

“World’s Largest Petroleum Companies Call Youth’s Landmark Climate Lawsuit “a Direct Threat to [Their] Businesses.”

Businesses’ motion to Intervene Aligns Fossil Fuel Industry with President Obama and the U.S. Government Ahead of Paris Climate Talks.

“The proposed interveners constitute a veritable who’s who of major corporate polluters, including the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (representing members Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries, and virtually all other U.S. refiners and petrochemical manufacturers), the American Petroleum Institute (representing 625 oil and natural gas companies), and the National Association of Manufacturers.”

Kids in Mexico block a development that would pave over a mangrove forest

mangrove-plant“When it comes to fighting environmental battles, low expectations are kind of the name of the game. So when a group of warm-hearted kids tries to stop a massive development project in the name of environmental protection, they ought to be met with immediate and soul-crushing failure, right?

“But, as we’ve seen recently in Washington, the tide may be turning! As Quartz reports, a group of 113 youngsters in Mexico garnered a big win for their local community — and, you know, the air and water around them. They petitioned a judge to halt the pending destruction of 170 acres of mangrove forest in Cancún to build a mixed-use resort development, arguing that they have a constitutional right to a healthy environment. The judge apparently agreed that fancy new homes, shops, and a boardwalk didn’t quite fit that definition.

“Mexico’s tourism development agency put this project in the works more than two decades ago, and if it doesn’t go forward, investors stand to lose something like $900 million, Quartz reports. But, as one four-year-old explained to Quartz, “If we cut everything down then we’re going to die. … Trees help us breathe.” That’s a compelling point — and makes it pretty hard to give a shit about those investors, $900 million or no.

“Here’s Quartz with more on the unfolding drama:

Sourced through Scoop.it from: grist.org