The Last Mass Extinction

I've mentioned before that our oceans take unimaginable abuse and for the most part it's out of sight out of mind. I've also mentioned that it won't be long before we realize just how vital the ocean is to our survival.

If history has taught us anything, it's that it can repeat itself.

Approximately 250 million years ago, the world's oceans ran out of oxygen. One theory is that this was brought on by asteroid filled with "soccer ball-shaped molecules called "fullerenes" (or "buckyballs") with traces of helium and argon gas trapped inside" and about 9K wide colliding with the planet which then changed the climate of the earth.

To continue to quote the article referenced about, not all scientists agree on the details of the cause of the climate change but the general consensus is that the Great Dying was caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide both in the sea and on land.

Most people are familiar with the extinction of dinosaurs a mere 65 million years ago, however this is different. The Great Dying resulted in 90% of all species on the planet dying. That means 90% of all plants, animals, fish, insects, and life on this planet went extinct....forever (just thought I'd drive that home)

We are once again at a point where carbon dioxide is building up in our oceans and air at a rapid pace only this time it's done consciously by human beings.

Even if humans were to survive another great extinction, life would be drastically different for us and would take millions of years for an ecosystem to stabalize.

The point is that even though we're making a real effort to protect our oceans and eat sustainably, it's not enough. We need drastic change and we need it now. We simply cannot allow our leaders to continue to refuse to curb emissions not only because we want to protect their environment but because it is critical to our own survial.

Sharks: Helping Us Breathe Easy

I've been neglecting this blog lately but you can check out a piece I did on sharks here.

Senate’s “kill bill” move a blow to Canadians and democracy

I don't usually re-post other articles completely but I completely agree with David Suzuki on this one and felt it was worth re-posting (to read it online click here):

On November 16, Canadian senators killed Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, with a surprise vote. The way the vote was carried out is an insult to Canadians and democracy. It’s also further evidence that Canada will go to the UN Climate Change negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, on November 29, with nothing to offer but empty words and an unwillingness to tackle what leading scientists say is the most serious crisis facing Canada and the world.

Even though the bill had been delivered to the Senate 193 days before, after being passed by the House of Commons, the vote was called without notice and without debate, when at least 15 Liberal senators and several independent senators were absent. This law, which would have put our country on track to be an environmental leader, was killed by only 11 votes (43 to 32).

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once promised he would never allow the unelected Senate to go against the will of the majority of Members of Parliament and the Canadian public. But with this vote in a Senate stacked by the prime minister, he has done exactly that.

The Act would have committed Canada to an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a 25 per cent reduction by 2020. Many international scientists agree that these reductions are the least required to prevent dangerous climate change.

But in a near-unprecedented move that flies in the face of democratic traditions and government accountability, Conservative senators killed this modest piece of legislation. At nearly 75 years old, I am sickened to see people my age making such a reckless decision that will affect the lives of today’s young people and generations to come when many of the senators won’t even be around to face the most serious consequences.

When his government was first elected in 2006, Prime Minister Harper told Canadians that “Restoring accountability will be one of the major priorities of our new government. Accountability is what ordinary Canadians, working Canadians, those people who pay their bills, pay their taxes, expect from their political leaders.”

It appears that was just empty rhetoric – especially when it comes to climate change. Our government has dismissed its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate change agreement that Canada and 186 countries ratified. Our government has not implemented any substantial policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and helping Canada join the emerging clean-energy economy, even though Canada is probably more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than any other industrialized country.

The government claims the cost of reducing emissions will be economically devastating yet continues to heavily subsidize and support the polluting fossil fuel industry, especially in the environmentally destructive tar sands. Canada has even earned itself the shameful reputation for obstructing progress at international negotiations on climate change.

Prime Minister Harper’s contention that the bill would have thrown “hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work” is simply false. In California, voters resisted attempts by out-of-state oil companies in the November 2 election to overturn the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act. Since the law was passed in 2006, California has attracted more investments in alternative energy start-up companies than anywhere in the world and has seen a boom in employment in the clean energy sector. Those investments tripled to US$2.9 billion over the past year alone, according to the Los Angeles Times.

According to Reuters news, “The world’s low carbon energy market is expected to treble in a decade, and analysts say major economies including Japan, the United States and China will be jostling for a slice of the market likely to be worth $2.2 trillion by 2020.”

And economists, including former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, have concluded that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have catastrophic economic consequences.

Canadians have seen far more leadership from municipal and provincial governments than from the federal government on environmental issues related to climate change. Ontario is phasing out coal power and has implemented incentives to attract clean-energy technologies. Vancouver is moving ahead with its ambitious green plans, and B.C. has implemented a carbon tax that increases over time.

As Canadians, we expect more of our leaders. At the very least, we expect them to remember that we still live in a democracy and that its rules must be respected.

Earthlings

"The Stages of Truth:

1. Ridicule

2. Violent Opposition

3. Acceptance"

-Earthlings

That is how the documentary "Earthlings" begins, a film that looks at the ways animals are expolited by human beings and is directed by Joaquin Pheonix.

This film was released in 2007 and although I had heard alot about it, I had never seen it. Here's the thing, I knew it would be filled with some graphic images and I feel that I don't have to see them. I don't eat meat or animal products, wear leather, buy products tested on animals, wear silk, wool, don't donate to charities that test on animals, visit zoos or aquariums, or support any other establishment that expolits animals. Do I sound holier than thou? Yes. But that means that I don't have to watch undercover video of a slaughterhouse. In my opinion I've earned it.

But I went to see it nonetheless, and if you want to hate humankind this is the film for you. I'm still losing sleep over the footage of a dog being thrown in a trashcompactor as it looks on helplessly and will never forget how the screams of a cow or pig sound like a human.

The sad part is that the people that need to see this film won't. The theatre was filled with tree-hugging hippies like me. Except one person came in with a cheese pizza, I'm guessing they felt bad about their choices real quick.

I only stayed half way through, my friend and I were so shaken that we had to leave. I think the most disturbing aspect of the entire experience was that it wasn't footage from a faraway country or another century. All of it had to do with very common industries and very very common products.

Most friends that I've told about the film have said that they couldn't handle it and wouldn't be able to see it. I can't handle it either, how long are we going to pretend that inconvenient truths don't exhist? Or even accept the reality of where our food and clothing comes from?

An Idealist

I've been called an idealist a couple of times this past month and although both times it was claimed to be a compliment, I've decided that it's actually insulting.

Idealists have a couple of definitions:

1. a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
2. a visionary or impractical person.
3. a person who represents things as they might or should be rather than as they are.
4. a writer or artist who treats subjects imaginatively.
5. a person who accepts the doctrines of idealism (the tendency to represent things in their ideal forms, rather than as they are)

I believe that by dismissing me as an idealist, one can easily dismiss whatever I say as impractical or unreasonable. I know from a lifetime of experience that the majority of people I encounter believe in many of the ideals that I do but don't practice those beliefs with their everyday decisions. Any vegan will tell you that people regularly say "good for you, but I could never give up meat"- again this immediately dismisses themselves of any responsibility because they've claimed it's impossible. End of story.

I also don't think I'm an idealist because I'm able to practice my ideals and beliefs daily. I would be an idealists if I preached the benefits of church and daily sermons but never got out of bed in time for mass.

Call me arrogant, self righteous, or even misguided but I am not an idealist.

A Ghost Agreement

Great link sent to me by a friend about the latest environmental accomplishment that doesn't exist.

No Such Thing as a Vegan

A friend of mine sent me this link. He even said 'Don't mean to be a jerk, just grossed me out'. I've listed my thoughts:

1. This is gross, in the sense that we are so disconnected with the food we eat and the products we use. Who knew that tennis raquets weren't vegan?
2. The person who created this image is trying to make a point that there is no such thing as a vegan. I get responses like that all the time, like the guy at work who eats beef every night for dinner and drives an SUV gives me a hard time when I eat something local but don't know if it's 100% organic. The thought process is that if you can find a minor misstep in my actions then it discredits my convinctions. Like a tiny thing that I do justifies your apathtic decisions? I don't know where this philosophy comes from, but it's strange.
3. Should it be this hard to abolish animal products from our lives? Some would argue it's great that the entire cow gets used but it shouldn't be that difficult to remove any one thing from your life. I fear when any one thing is impossible to get ride of, dependence is not a strength. (Plastic anyone?)

Monsanto's Suicide Gene

A while back I wrote a brief introduction to GE Foods and Monsanto (although far from being the only bio-tech corporation who specializes in Agriculture, it is likely the most notorious), when Canada was deciding whether to label GE Foods or not. Sadly, the bill was rejected.

When it comes to GE Foods, the primary concern for Canadian consumers is usually health. Because foods with tampered genes haven't been around for very long, we don't know the long term effects.

For many others, the consequences of GE Foods can mean life or death. Something that many feared when Monsanto introduced the 'suicide gene' in 1988. This 'terminator gene' or 'Gene Use Restriction Technology', is a seed that has been altered so that the its seeds are sterile for the next season. Farmers have been growing crops and saving the seeds for the next year for generations and a terminator seeds makes this impossible.

As mentioned in my previous blog, it's practically impossible to keep GE seeds separate from untampered ones so even if a farmer doesn't use the seeds there's no guarantee it won't end up in their harvest.

Canada may have come dangerously close to having these seeds in their harvests but less wealthy nations with farmers with little education haven't been so lucky.

Many have blamed Monsanto for playing a part in the high suicide rate of farmers in India. SourceWatch estimates that 125,000 farmers have committed suicide since 1997 after promises of rich harvest from Monsanto have meant they've had to purchase new seeds every year. And since you can't promise the conditions will be optimal, many farmers don't have the funds to purchase new seeds after each year and therefore have no way to make a living.

India has become a testing ground for GE seeds and now Monsanto is even seeing business opportunities in the wake of disaster.

I hate to be the environmentalist that dumps on the big corporation because it's never that simple or black and white. Technology has the power to do good or damage, but Monsanto makes themselves such an easy target. Do they ever get any good press?

Social Media Isn't Enough

I've written at least one post about online activism and how it can be more detrimental than productive. However as any activist will tell you, social media cannot be ignored and it is an invaluable tool for gathering support and raising awareness.

Many people fill out templates for letters to be sent to officials, corporations, or even individuals and then feel good about themselves and continue with their day. Myself included.

However many times it isn't enough and it can't re-create the passion, urgency, or the united front needed for drastic change.

Here is a great article discussing the disconnect social media can create, the undue credit it has gotten in the past but it's also a reminder as to how it can be an effective tool to bring together people demanding change.

(Thanks to Shark Truth for passing along the link)

Go Green or Else?

Thoughts?

Here's one review here.

Are we all just Sociopaths?

Very interesting article passed on to me by Michelle (thank you!) about the psychology that plays a part in how we've arrived at the current situation we're in.

Read: World Gone Mad here.

Always Room for One More?

As an angry activist, it's rare to find a topic that is considered taboo in the environmental community. However I find that even the most radical and honest environmentalists don't seem to address the issue of population.

I've touched on it a bit before but it's a sensitive issue. We all believe that it's a basic human right, and it is...

However, our basic human right to reproduce has meant that resources for many of us already here have become scarce. Whose right prevails? The right to clean water and food or the right to reproduce? Because we're getting drastically close to having to choose.

China implemented a one child policy years ago that has had disastrous effects on baby girls however this is a country that values its boys for taking care of their elders in their adulthood.

The point is, and trust me I rarely give China environmental kudos, is that China recognized that overpopulation was becoming a serious issue and took drastic action because it required it.

Although the chinese population began to decline, the success was debatable because it resulted in a male population that completely outnumbered the female population. However, recently China has implemented a 2 child policy with positive results.

Here in North America, the issue of overpopulation isn't even a second thought. Large families are celebrated on television and even encouraged with the media's obsession with pregnancy.

Restrictions on how many times we can reproduce seems drastic, authoritarian, and oppressive. But the human race has a track record of only thinking in short term and the world's population continues to grow at an alarming rate.

Want me to prove it? Since starting this post the world's population has increased by 3,000 people and I write fast. The Population Media Centre has a population calculator that I garuntee will unnerve you in a few moments.

Seriously, when the smartest human being on the planet is saying that we need to consider fleeing earth to survive, I'm thinking we should probably start paying attention to the problem.

Links & Tidbits

Man who has lived without money for 2 years.

Banksy's Brilliance.

Where are humans getting such high levels of BPA? Shopping.

1.7 million people want the dolphin slaughter in Taiji ended.

Harper looking to use tax dollars to bring Fox News to Canada?

The Tokyo Two will finally be getting a trail date for exposing illegal whale meat on Sept 6.

Surrounded by Monsanto

Last year I wrote a post on Monsanto and GE Foods, a subject I find myself talking about quite frequently.

It's an interesting subject that I'm always eager to talk about and usually surprised that people know so little about.

As a follow up I found this article on one man's attempt to completely banish Monsanto from his life for a month. How difficult could it be? How difficult should it be to banish associations from any company for a month? When does a corporation have too much power? (Probably more often than not.)

Many consumers and advocacy groups feel that mandatory labeling of GE Foods would prompt consumers to stop purchasing GE Foods and therefore reduce Monsanto's power. As of 2008, the BC Government said that they agreed with labeling GE Foods but didn't feel that a bill in which 15,000 citizens supported would do the job (see my 2008 post).

What's the latest update? Well labeling of GE Foods has been mandatory for many years now in the European Union, Japan, and Australia and is still being demanded by many people in the United States and Canada, although with no plans to make it mandatory (an action that more than 80% of Canadians support).

Today's Water Crisis (and tomorrow's)

I once read that this planet doesn't have a food shortage problem, it has a food distribution problem. If you've read any of my other posts you'll know that one of the distribution problems is that the majority of grains and soy grown on this planet goes to feeding livestock that we ultimately consume. We could create much more meals with the grains and soy itself than the meat we produce.

The same can be said for water. Although the inevitable water crisis hasn't achieved the same sort of social relevance yet as global warming, it is just as important and just as scary.

The world's population is expected to increase up to 50% in the next 50 years and we aren't able to offer clean drinking water to those that currently inhabit the planet. In addition, the world's clean water supply continues to become privatized at an alarming rate.

Water is expected to be seen much like oil is today, with shortages and crisis affecting our economies and our health except unlike oil there are no alternatives to clean water. Today's corporate superpowers are currently battling it out to purchase and privatize what will inevitably become our most important scarce resource.

The effects can already be seen today as one report found "you pay more for water in a slum in Manila than in a flat in London."

How did this happen? When did water become a product that can be owned and not a natural resource that is entitled to everyone? It reminds me of Monsanto, who was able to copyright and own 'life'. The blame can be shared by our complacency, citizens sold out by their governments, or corporations with unstoppable greed that have taken advantage or our laws. The blame is likely shared by everyone but the fact remains that life on this planet (ourselves included) absolutely depends on clean water- and you'll have to be able to afford this privilege.

So what are the solutions? An obvious one is for us in more developed countries to be less wasteful with our water and to invest in more sustainable technologies (capturing rainwater). We need to seriously question who will be benefiting from the privatizing of water and sooner or later we are going to have to address the population problem. We can argue our basic human rights about procreating but the science doesn't change-there are too many of us and we're using up resources faster than we can replace them. But I'll leave that for another blog post...




FLOW is a great documentary that examines this issue and offers some eye opening facts here.

You can find out more about water and the effects of privatization here.

This Week's Links

Hi Everyone,

The last few weeks of summer have been hella busy. So I'm going to cop out of a post by posting links to people who are actually writing!

How some nations are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Japan in the IWC.

Seriously people.

Updates on Lucy.

How can people that make chocolate be bad?

Amazing Whale Photos

Sorry, been busy and haven't had time to write a post. In the mean time, feast your eyes on these amazing underwater photos!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/7940987/Photographer-has-close-encounter-with-pilot-whales-in-the-Strait-of-Gibraltar.html

The Future?

And now to mix things up, some positivity!

Here's a cool video of rush hour somewhere in the Netherlands:

Roadside Zoos

There are very few things that anger me more than roadside zoos. The argument of education is laughable when animals are seen in deplorable conditions. It's nothing more than a selfish, ignorant, and archaic form of sadistic entertainment.

And that's putting it nicely.

In fact I think these attractions are detrimental to our morals and values as a society. These types of attractions completely contradict what we say we value as a society (well most of us say we do). We have laws against animal abuse for domesticated animals and push for conservation and animal habitat preservation from our governments but then attractions are legal and popular enough to remain open?



Cherokee's Archaic Conditions for Caged Bears

Peta has a letter that you can send to North Carolina officials regarding that zoo here.

It's not just our American friends who continue to operate roadside zoos, WSPA has had a campaign to end them in Ontario for years. They've also got a link and a letter template for Ontario officials here.





If there's anything you do today to invest in your karma, then send a letter. Or if you feel like visiting one and chaining yourself to cage...that will help too.

Biomass Burning

Burning Biomass to meet energy needs and reduction standards in North America has become quite popular in recent years.

For a quick refresher, burning of biomass is different than biomass. Biomass involves obtaining energy from a living or formerly living thing (plants, gas or fuels) which includes obtaining energy while the living organism is alive.

Burning of biomass is exactly what it sounds like- obtaining energy by burning formerly living things. Most commonly wood.

A quick google will show that burning of biomass has grown in popularity in the last 20 years, with many organizations and governments advocating this 'environmentally friendly' method of energy production.

However my issue with biomass burning is the same with corn ethanol fuel or nuclear energy. I feel that people who advocate it fail to encompass the entire process when labeling it as 'green'.

Treehugger has a great article on the plans for increasing biomass burning in North America and the many effects it will have on us environmentally- 120 new plants are planned in the US which means 46,000 square feet of forest will have to clear cut. The piece also goes into detail as to why the method is being embraced by power plants, small capital investments but enough to meet emissions reductions requirements.

Yes burning of biomass will reduce emissions... but that is one benefit to an entire process.

I do think that biomass burning is an improvement but it's really just a small improvement to an industry that needs drastic changes and soon.

Last Chance to Save the Tigers?

Sorry another youtube link today, but these animals are so freaking majestic and beautiful I couldn't resist;

Countdown to Zero... Thoughts?

New movie coming out called 'Countdown to Zero', looks interesting but hasn't this been an issue since the Cold War?

Friends of Davie Bay

My boyfriend spent his summers in Texada growing up, a small town in the Gulf Islands of BC. A small mining town of 1,100 residents that boasts a spectacular and diverse environment.

Upon arriving in Texada the first sight you will see is an enormous gravel pit from the island's Limestone mine.

Getting past that it's almost impossible not to spot eagles, deers, hawks, and vultures as you drive across the island. It's a pretty pristine place that feels like it's yet to be discovered.

There have been certain benefits from the mining industry, including an old gravel pit that has been filled with water and is now a stunning water hole to swim in:



I've been lucky enough to go to Texada a number of times now and I can see how it would be difficult for residents to balance mining activity while trying to perserve the ecological gem that it is.

It's a balance that not everyone agrees on. Lehigh Cement Company has applied to the Integrated Land Management Bureau to build a barge facility in Davie Bay in Texada.

Having visited Davie Bay myself I can say that it is easily one of the most beautiful, clean, and environmentally diverse areas of the entire island. Which is why the island is divided as to whether mining should be allowed in the area, which would likely devestate the ecosystems there.

A map of the proposed plans can be found here.

As the facebook group 'Davie Bay Think Tank...I think they should leave it alone' describes it:

'They will be loading the raw material near the forestry road at the land formerly known as terrace park. there will be a conveyor bringing the material over the cliff at the south end of the bay, just past the spit where the cabin* was.'

*The cabin can be found on the map.

The site also goes on to point out that the area is a Rockfish Conservation Area and that it's home to the rare prickly pear cactus.

The residents of Texada and opponents of the plan are even more concerned about the project since the BC Government decided not to have an environmental review of the area.

Why? Projects that are only considered 'large' are subject to review. In this case it means more than 250,000 tonnes per year. The proposed plan is for 240,000 tonnes a year. But the proposed infrastructure is capable of supporting a much larger mine...

Luckily there is some hope as the 'Friends of Davie Bay' non profit organization was formed to halt the project and West Coast Environmental Law have taken up the cause. On July 26 a petition was filed challenging the BC government’s failure to conduct an environmental assessment.

For more information on Friends of Davie Bay, check out their facebook page. For more information on the effects of the project and West Coast Environmental Law's case, click here.

The FODB are a David challenging a Goliath and welcome any financial contributions, whcih can be done here.

Stay tuned for more...

Environmentalists Need to Give Up

Really interesting article on how environmentalists need to give up hope and doing so is the only way we will be successful.

Check it out here.

Whale tries to escape Aquarium

Not really a whole lot to say:

Today's Fishing Technologies Pt ll

I think the best description I've heard of long line fishing (and I might have said it before) is that it would be equivalent of putting a string of traps in the woods that was miles and miles long to catch bears. You would catch some bears but you would also catch fox, wolves, rabbits, moose, deer, dogs, and the occasional human. Incredible wasteful and ridiculous right?

Welcome to longline fishing!

Longlining is a technique where hooks are placed on a very long line with bait, spread over miles of ocean. The Wake Project Society describes it as:

The practice of long lining includes laying a line of baited hooks ranging in length from 150m to 100km.1 It is a massively indiscriminate way of fishing, catching not just the targeted fish but all manner of sea creatures

You can find a really great illustration of how it works on their website here.

Despite recent improvements in regulation and sustainability, the technique is wasteful and
have been proven to be extremely harmful to particular species like sharks and Albetross. According to the Human Society over two billion hooks are put in the water with long lines each year.

Major countries that still use long lining include the US, China, Japan, and the European Union, although there are many more smaller nations using the technique.

Here's a video on long line fishing with fun music while fish are caught on hooks and try desperately to get away!:



PS. More scientific proof that fish feel pain.

BP Oil Spill in Photos

Check out this link for some amazing and sad photos of some victims of the oil spill.

BP: The Next Generation

Since the BP spill has yet to be contained, I have this visual of their offices being absolute chaos: paper flying out of printers, someone in the fetal position by the water cooler, a sweaty CEO loosening his tie while he continues to answer the same questions over and over to reporters, and all the blinds are closed so the staff can try to ignore the eggs and tomatoes being thrown from the public.

A little dramatic yes, but it's what we all hope the mood of Beyond Petrolium's offices are.

Apparently they are looking toward the future...

BP Oil is currently working on plans to drill in the arctic and it's called the Liberty Project. That's right, as more than 50% of Americans feel that BP Oil should be criminally prosecuted the company is proposing to drill in one of the two Polar Bear Seas, where half of America's polar bears currently live.

The NRDC who is suing BP for it's current spill has a letter you can fill out to express your feelings toward the new project here (only if you're American). The NRDC also states that like in the Gulf, BP is allowed to conduct its own environmental assesment and emergency response plan.

We all know how well that worked:

The Soy Scam

I've been getting asked a lot lately how I feel about the detrimental effects of soy and to be honest I hadn't really heard anything about it. I do know about rainforests being cleared in the amazon however the majority of that is used to feed livestock for human consumption.

However I wasn't surprised when I found this article that argues that the dairy industry funds lobby 'anti-soy' groups. Does this mean that the 'Got Milk?' ads aren't selling enough pus filled dairy?

Capturing the Meat Industry in Photos

It can be difficult for me to explain how strongly I feel about the meat industry and the ridiculously inhumane methods used.

However I'm blown away by these photos that seem to perfectly capture exactly what I feel so strongly about. Check them out here.

Tommaso Ausili's award winning photographs captured in an Italian meat factory:

Today's Fishing Technologies Pt l

Despite what I have claimed in the past, I now believe the biggest threat to the environment right now is today's common fishing practices.

Technologies developed in the past 30 years are far too destructive, wasteful, and unselective.

Because I don't want to overwhelm you my dear readers (all two of you), I've broken this up into an exciting 3 part series.

Today's subject is bottom trawling, a fishing technique which involves dragging a fishing net across the sea floor. To be able to give you an idea of just how ridiculous this common technique is, the equivalent would be to bulldoze an entire rainforest in the search for meat. Yes, you would catch some deer, moose, and bear... but you would have entire forests, swamps, and rivers decimated in the process.

Greenpeace has a really great video demonstrating how bottom trawling works:




Greenpeace International describes bottom trawling on their website:

"Bottom trawling involves dragging huge, heavy nets along the sea floor. Large metal plates and rubber wheels attached to these nets move along the bottom and crush nearly everything in their path. All evidence indicates that deep water life forms are very slow to recover from such damage, taking decades to hundreds of years - if they recover at all."

In addition to being disastrous to the ecosystems and fish populations, the Gulf Coast Preservation Society estimates that up to 50% of what is caught from bycatch is thrown back into the waters. This has resulted in the decline of many species who end up caught in fishing nets....for example up to 90% of sharks are caught as bycatch from tuna nets.

The good news is that some countries are moving towards banning bottom trawling, the bad news is that countries like Spain, Russia, and Iceland continue to bottom trawl. And those are the countries we know about. The Wake Project Society explains why its hard to know who's really doing what in international waters here.

The reasons for these fishing techniques and lack of regulation aren't definite, some believe that it's simply ignorance, others use the 'economic' argument (the fishing industry employees millions of people), and some believe that many fishing companies owe their governments millions of dollars for their boats and equipment that they have no choice but to pillage the seas.

But that's not really the point, because the result is going to be the same and none of those reasons hold any water (pun intended).

As mentioned before, the real crisis with our oceans is that we really don't know that much about them. We obtain up to 70% of our oxygen supply from our oceans and it's really anyone's guess as to what will happen if we completely empty our waters (which is slated to happen soon). Well, it isn't really anyone's guess... there are differing theories but ultimately no consensus.

Paying for the Meat Industry

One of my biggest gripes about the annual seal hunt is that my tax dollars subsidize it. I don't like hearing about how all of these people need the hunt for income because if it's not making any money why not subsidize an industry that could eventually stand on its own?

This same argument applies to the meat industry, and the thing that really gets me is how much money the meat industry receives compared to crop farmers. And the irony is that 80% of crops grown in America are used to feed livestock! (not sure of the exact number for Canada)

I've detailed in the past how ridiculously unsustainable, socially irresponsible, and morally abhorrent the meat industry is before so I won't get into it again. And I understand that our Canadian farmers require subsidies to remain competative with international prices however I don't like helping to support something that I take a stand against.

What I especially loathe is the meat industry being so slow, resiliant and outright defiant to improving animal transportation laws and conditions when they recieve these government handouts.

More to the Cove

I was recently discussing the Cove with someone who although enjoyed the film, had a hard time believing that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) could be so corrupt.

Many of us have a certain respect and awe for organizations, professions, or people of rank that are in a position of authority and are appointed to represent the people's interests.

The IWC was created in 1946 to conserve whaling populations and govern whaling prices. This organization was created because of the fear of extinction due to over hunting of whales.

Whaling was supported during the first 20 years of the IWC's existence and whale populations fell even further.

However public pressure in the 1970's with many 'Save the Whales' campaigns meant that many whaling countries abolished the practice altogether.

Some however, continued to hunt large number of whales and do so legally with a loophole in the IWC's regulations: a country can hunt whales for scientific purposes. Countries like Japan, Iceland, and Norway then make sure that the whale meat that was hunted for science doesn't go to waste. The meat is sold in supermarkets, restaurants, and to schools. Sometimes it's labelled, sometimes not.

I won't even get into the health hazards, the ecological importance of whales, or even how damn smart these creatures are in this post. Let's focus on the IWC.

You'd think that with Japan hunting 950 whales a year, the IWC would quickly amend the loophole. I mean what's the point of regulations if there's a blatant hole that makes the entire set of rules meaningless? Either don't have the regulations or make them effective right?

Like the seal hunt, the whaling industry is well, fishy. The seal hunt is mostly subsidized and is trying to meet a demand that doesn't exist. So why continue? Some theorize that it's a pride thing others think that the whaling industry is in enormous debt and has to pay back the government for million dollar ships and equipment. Whatever the reason, it doesn't make sense

Anyone who has seen The Cove knows that wealthier whaling nations have been *allegedly* recruiting small poorer nations to join the IWC (nations that don't even have whales in their vicinity) and then buying their votes.

However something The Cove did miss was that the IWC is using some other unconventional tactics: hookers.

Surprisingly this might be just what whales need right now. With Obama considering allowing whaling again, this sort of outrageous revelation could be enough to motivate people that whales be protected once again.

History of Oil Spills

Unfortunately the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico is dominating headlines lately (not unfortunate that it's getting coverage but rather that it happened).

It's sad that this is how we need to be reminded that offshore drilling is far from fool-proof and spills aren't a question of if but rather when. The haunting images of animals drenched oil and unable to move should be enough for us to take a stand against our dependence on oil.

However, history has shown this won't change anything. The recent oil spill doesn't even make the top ten worst oil spills in history. Even America's latest president who campaigned for change and promised absolutely no drilling has approved more offshore drilling. Canada isn't much better with our government pushing to install a massive pipeline to carry oil from the Tar Sands right to Vancouver's coast near tourist destination Stanley Park.

The Gulf of Mexico is getting the attention it rightly should, including the usual celebrity telethons, massive government funding, investigations to reveal the obvious, and hollow promises from the oil company.

However the spotlight should be shared with all oil companies and the governments with lax regulations. Why aren't the front pages including investigations into other operations? Why aren't we demanding a halt to all other approvals to offshore drilling?

Our focus is on recovery when we should also be thinking of preventing it because it absolutely will happen again.

Oceans: How we are cutting off our oxygen supply

I've said it before and I'll say it again: oceans are out of sight, out of mind for many of us and are among the most abused ecosystems on the planet.

Because the majority of our waters are 'open' (meaning they don't below to any country and therefore aren't regulated and controlled by any national government) it has meant that almost anything goes.

Yes, there are protected areas and sanctuaries but much of the ocean's life is constantly moving and rarely are these protected areas 100% safe from illegal fishing, whaling, or dumping.

Add that to the ridiculous legal practices that are currently practiced around the world like using the oceans as a sewage dumping ground or just a regular garbage dump and it's a little wonder our oceans are in the state they're in.

Today's fishing practices are more destructive and unsustainable than they've ever been in history. For an update on common fishing practices that include long lining, bottom trawling, and sharking fining, check out Wake's website here.

This astonishingly abridged and short summary of how are oceans are endlessly abused and generally taken for granted leads me to my point: humankind is once again failing to see that destruction of the environment could likely lead to the destruction of ourselves.

I hate to sound like how Conservatives and Republicans paint us environmentalists as dooms dayers but I don't see how we can continue to expect to live the way we are with no consequences.

Oceans cover 71% of our earth and provide an estimated 50-70% of our oxygen supply. Phytoplankton uses photosynthesis, just like plants and trees do on land to take energy from the sun to convert Carbon Dioxide into Oxygen.

Phytoplankton support all ocean life: plants, fish, and even sharks and whales. National Geographic has a more detailed article on Phytoplankton here.

However, what happens when we start messing with oceans by depleting it of fish and changing the earth's temperature?

Well no one really knows, as my friend the biologist explains:

There is already a shift in heavily fished oceans away from fish biomass, replaced with other biomass. Jellyfish being an example in some situations. This is the response of the environment to an imbalance and it is always unclear what will happen long term. Often, you see a peak in say jellyfish after disturbance and a corresponding crash in their food source as the rising number of jellyfish eat more and more. Often their food crashes, they then crash also. All round bad situation. This could result in spikes and crashed in phytoplankton, as the whole food web gets messed up. Spikes mean more 02, but crashes mean less. It could imbalance the whole atmosphere, which has in the past been relatively stable.

I think one of the biggest problems is ocean acidification. Carbon Dioxide and water in the air form carbonic acid. More carbon dioxide= more carbonic acid. As oceans acidify, organisms cannot deal with the change. Many use compounds like calcium carbonate in their 'shells' which dissolves when exposed to acid. Phytoplankton can't deal with acids and also is the fastest assimilator of C02. So if they are removed by acid we're on a downward spiral with no fish, no phytoplankton, and no oxygen being produced.

Just like total Recall.

(His words not mine).

So when my friend orders tuna sushi and I say that in the next 50 years we likely won't have any fish left, she'll say "Might as well enjoy it now!". I also have to explain that it's very likely that without fish and healthy oceans we won't be around either.

**Another related article on how the recent BP oil spill is also affecting our oxygen supply can be found here.**

Fish-Eating-Vegetarians

It's surprising to me how many 'vegetarians' I meet still eat fish. It's a very interesting physcological question on what and who we extend our compassion to.

How come the morals and reasons that have convinced someone not to eat meat do not apply to fish? Is it because we are constantly told how good and essential fish is to our diet? Or is it because most fish are caught from the wild and so the factory farming issue doesn't apply?

Or is it because humans can't identify emotions or feelings from fish like we can from cows or pigs?

I usually contend that our moral compass as a society continues to grow but it starts from large animals down to the small (seriously... ask a mouse or a spider). I've heard the arguments as to why humans have a right to rule over and consume animals and when the arguments are defeated it is usually through examples of larger animals (many animals exhibit cognitive dissonance, empathy, grief). People can visably see a gorilla holding the body of their dead baby or an elephant funeral) but it's more difficult to visualize these traits in our marine life.

I'm not saying that all animals have the same level emotional intelligence or foresight but it's getting harder and hard to ignore the science that all animals feel pain in the same sense that we do.

You can find an interesting on how fish feel pain here.

Food for Thought

I believe in karma and one thing I've always believed is that it cannot be good for the soul to eat something that spent its life or last moments in fear and pain. (Take that Chick Soup for the Soul!) Although I usually don't use it as an explanation not to eat meat because it's lacking in scientific prooft but I believe it nonetheless.

However it seems there now IS scientific proof the vegans and vegetarians are generally happier people.

In other news, the UN has now asked that the population of the world take on a vegan diet to save humanity (seriously, that is pretty much their wording).

Slacktivism

Someone was telling me about an online petition the other day and we were discussing the likelihood that it would reach 100,000 signatures. My friend felt pretty confident that it would and I asked the question "Does it really matter though?"

I know that sounds shocking from someone who has a blog with the word 'activist' in it and who you would thinkwould consider petitions as being as essential as oxygen.

What I meant was; how effective are online petitions? There are certain levels of effectiveness for different tactics of pressure for change.

For instance, I don't know how many times I've been told that 1 person writing a letter regarding an issue usually means that 4 more people feel the same way but only 1 took the time to write. I have no scientific data on that, I've heard it a few places and it makes sense. So if a politician receives 10,000 letters, they will likely assume that 50,000 people feel the same way.

The same works for a petition although the numbers are probably smaller (again-no actual proof).

In addition, I feel that the longer a person invests in communicating their feelings will decide the impact it has. It also usually means that it's harder for the recipient to dismiss the argument. I know from personal experience that governments will use an excuse to consider a signature on petition invalid- "couldn't read a postal code", "Wrote a City and Country but no Province".

These were all the reasons, I explained to my friend was why I didn't think it mattered if this particular petition got more than 100,000 signatures- the online petition is just too convenient and like most things electronic- easy to delete. I didn't have any scientific proof or data, just experience and a certain view.

I'm convinced I came across as a jaded old person who used pessimism as an excuse not to try to initiate change but oh well.

I also felt like it could hurt other campaigns-if all online petitions are getting 100,000 signatures or more- then it raises the bar for all petitions to have some sort of impact.

In summary, the reason I tell you is because there has been an article that confirms and articulates my feelings much better and I feel validated.

A new term for the online activism has also been coined: Slactivism.

Ultimately, I think online activism is a powerful and positive thing and maybe it will challenge us to stand out with more creative tactics. I'm just wary of trying to cause real change when the solution seems too easy.

Center for Consumer Freedom

One of the things I get asked about frequently is my decision to be a vegan, which would take me numerous blog posts to explain all the reasons for this lifestyle.

However, one thing that never ceases to surprise me is how successful the Dairy/Meat Industry is at keeping their relationship with Government bodies relatively low profile. The two work very hard to enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship.

Most people are shocked to learn that it is illegal in 13 states to say anything defamatory towards the meat or dairy industry. Even if you're stating an opinion or fact. Just ask Oprah.

Can you think of another industry where it is illegal to say anything, even opinion or fact, that would hurt sales? What about Freedom of Speech? Isn't anyone protecting the consumer?

Good Question. Well, one non profit organizations is the Center for Consumer Freedom that is 'devoted to promoting personal and protecting consumer choices.' They will ensure that consumers have a right to all information so they can make responsible choices.

Oh shit.

Turns out that organization is run off of corporate funds from the companies that the CCF is regulating.

Not all advocacy groups and non profit organizations are corrupt and untrustworthy however many are careful with what they say.

My point is that when it comes to our choices, most people assume that regulations and laws are in place to protect us. Or if something is truly detrimental to our health we would be aware of it by now. Both theories are wrong.

Again the extent to how information regarding the meat and dairy industry is withheld from the public would take many more blogs,....which I will most likely write.

Each and every one of us needs to be responsble and aware of the consequences of our choices, including what we put in our bodies. The owness is on us alone.

Sleeping with the Enemy?

Ok, so the title is a little dramatic but it got your attention didn't it?

One of the problems with greenwashing is that instead of assuring me that I'm purchasing an environmental safe product from a responsible company, I end up not trusting any claim. Even from a trusted grassroots organization.

Case in point: Clorox and The Sierra Club.

As of 2007, Clorox has partnered with The Sierra Club to produce a line of 'green' products called 'Greenworks'.

The Sierra Club website says that the organization is proud to help offer the consumer a variety of safe and green products for household cleaning.

The 'greenness' of these products is debatable; the ingrediants are listed on the side however the word 'natural' is used often which is commonly used to hide harmful but still technically natural ingrediants.

But let's give Clorox and The Sierra Club the benefit of the doubt and assume they are completely green products.

The real issue is that The Sierra Club is now getting a cut of the profits from the products.

Is this a win win situation?: new green products and an environmental group is getting a cut.

However, doesn't this new partnership mean that The Sierra Club will essentially look the other way when it comes to all the other environmentally harmful business practices of Clorox?

A former employee thinks so.

The real problem is that this type of partnership isn't rare and that the public won't know to what extent it is affecting the decisions and campaigns of their environmental watchdog organizations.

It's easy to judge these organizations but it's understandably tempting to accept the cash, look the other way and tackle another environmental issue with the funds.

I'm back baby!

Back and better than ever. Stay tuned.