The Angry Activist

Sharks Need Love Too

2011-02-15T13:23:00.000-08:00

I tend to have a different reaction to sharks than most people. I feel a deep affection for sharks and even seeing a photo of one makes me want to jump in the water and give it a hug.

Not only do many species of shark help regulate the ocean and ensure that humankind's oxygen supply is steady and balanced, but most divers will argue that they aren't the ferocious monsters that the media depicts them as.

Many people can tell you that an estimated 75,000,000-100,000,000 sharksare pulled out of our oceans every year to feed a growing demand for shark fin soup.

But a lesser known aspect of this problem is how current fishing methods used all over the world are putting not just sharks but our oceans in peril. You'd probably be surprised to discouver that something like our love for tuna is causing sharks to die. Common unsustainable fishing methods like bottom trawling mean that when fishing boats are looking for tuna they're catching sharks and lots of other species too.

Sharks and tuna often share the same space and when a large net is dragged along the bottom floor, it isn't able to discriminate between tuna or anything else. The result is bycatch and lots of it. Bycatch is any untargeted species that is caught. Many times the bycatch is thrown back in the water (of course almost everything is dead at this point).

Bottom trawling is only one of many common unsustainable fishing methods that result in large amounts of bycatch. Long line fishing and Muraomi nets are other examples. Bycatch has become a major concern for scientists, ocean lovers, and of course shark huggers and many feel that bycatch and modern fishing practices is one of the biggest threats facing our oceans.

'Saving Sharks' is complicated and it's not as simple as getting people to stop eating soup (although it would help sharks dramatically). Legislation, improved conservation, less shark fin soup, and dramatic changes in fishing regulations are all needed to keep sharks in the water.

But where do we begin? Well if you ask me, it's by getting people to love sharks.

(find out more information at www.wakeproject.net)

China- Environmental Leader?

2011-01-21T15:30:00.000-08:00

China gets a lot of flack, as the most populated country on the planet it frequently comes under fire for human rights violations, environmental degradation, and questionable ethical behavior.

But as the world's likely next super power China has begun to show some promise. Taking a cue from Bolivia, China recently banned animals in circus' and restricted animals in zoos. Wow. This is huge. Can you image anything like that happening in North America? Barnes and Bailey wouldn't let that happen without a fight.

China has also organized an annual tree planting drive that has seen over 12 billion trees planted in the last 32 years that has resulted in forested areas increasing and in 2001, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) listed China among the top 15 countries with the most "closed forest" ....um what?

The surprises don't stop there, China is also invests the most worldwide in 'clean technology' and made free plastic bags illegal in 2008.

Sorry, am I the only one surprised by this? Who is doing China's PR? I get that despite these efforts China is still one of the worst pollutors on the planet but how does China have such a bad rap when we have the TAR SANDS??

Keep updated on China's environmental efforts here.

Obama's Report Card

2011-01-20T16:18:00.000-08:00

Interesting Review of Obama's environmental record this far. Click Here.

The Last Mass Extinction

2010-12-30T14:52:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-09T10:57:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-26T11:44:00.001-08:00

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

2010-11-23T13:57:00.000-08:00

"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

2010-11-12T06:31:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-04T16:20:00.000-07:00

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

No Such Thing as a Vegan

2010-10-22T15:19:00.000-07:00

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:

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?
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.
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

2010-10-13T13:06:00.001-07:00

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

2010-10-06T10:54:00.001-07:00

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?

2010-10-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

Thoughts?

Here's one review here.

Are we all just Sociopaths?

2010-09-17T08:34:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-08-31T20:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-29T10:13:00.001-07:00

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

2010-08-28T15:52:00.000-07:00

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)

2010-08-17T13:08:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-17T12:37:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-13T15:32:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-08-10T13:39:00.001-07:00

And now to mix things up, some positivity!

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

Roadside Zoos

2010-08-04T11:40:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-03T15:59:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-08-03T15:57:00.000-07:00

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

Countdown to Zero... Thoughts?

2010-08-03T15:38:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-29T14:34:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-22T11:44:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-15T14:46:00.001-07:00

Not really a whole lot to say:

Today's Fishing Technologies Pt ll

2010-07-14T15:14:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-13T16:29:00.000-07:00

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

BP: The Next Generation

2010-07-09T13:56:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-07T10:11:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-07T01:23:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-28T12:37:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-23T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-18T14:02:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-15T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-14T13:21:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-03T14:41:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-30T12:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-04-29T15:25:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-04-28T15:20:00.000-07:00

Back and better than ever. Stay tuned.

As Good as Our Word

2008-08-15T17:12:00.001-07:00

When was the last time you signed a contract and then never bothered to fulfill your obligations without any sort of implications?

How often does the government forgive you for not paying your taxes? Although taxes are more of a suggestion anyways.

My point is how absolutely mind boggling it is that our government (others too) doesn’t bother to live up to its contractually signed obligations. I know this isn’t the most articulate statement but it seems most appropriate: WTF?

We certainly aren’t forgiving third world debt, so why are our prior commitments utterly worthless?

Since pledging to reduce greenhouse gases 6% from the amount emitted in 1990 by 2012 (this works out to be a 5.2% reduction per year) with the Kyoto Accord. Yet Canada’s emissions continue to grow (a big shout out goes to Alberta’s tar sands for helping with this one), with Harper insisting that cutting emissions would be seriously detrimental to our economy.

Personally I think not being able to breathe would hurt our economy more.
Although we have signed Kyoto, we’ve decided to now set our own levels of reductions…due to begin around 2020.

Canada is also among 7 other industrialized nations that participate in annual summits and other meetings as a member of G8. This committee discusses world events such as the economy, health, the environment, and law enforcement. Among the goals that these countries have committed to is aid for Africa. Unsurprisingly there are now rumors that among other countries Canada is trying to back out of this commitment as well:

http://www.one.org/international/g8/

Canada prides itself on being a first world country that boasts seemingly endless natural beauty, so how come we look like complete tools on the world stage? It doesn’t matter if the Liberal party signed the Kyoto accord; the conservatives are still obligated to fulfill their responsibilities.

Our government is making us look like an insolent child that keeps promising to clean their room ‘tomorrow’.

Bill C-517

2008-08-15T17:10:00.000-07:00

Recently a little bill called Bill C-517 was turned down in both federal and provincial parliament. People might be familiar with it since Greenpeace has been spearheading a campaign to have it passed along with a handful of other organizations however their efforts proved unsuccessful.

For now.

What’s the deal with Bill C-517? Well it called for mandatory labelling on genetically engineered food. For those of you who are unfamiliar, GE foods are food that have had their genes altered with (an example would be taking a gene from a seal to make your corn more resistant to the cold), which is a very simplified explanation. Passing the bill should be simple, right? Well it’s not.

Studies have shown that 85-90% of Canadians want to know if their food is GE and I personally helped Greenpeace hand over 22,000 signatures in support of the Bill before it was about to be voted on. Again however, this proved to be ineffective. When I wrote my MP asking what the deal was, he wrote back with this:

“Although I support labelling on GE foods, I don’t think this bill will accomplish that.”

A response that ridiculous doesn’t require me to elaborate.

With such overwhelming support of such that bill, you think politicians would jumping all over themselves to endorse it and take credit for it. But that’s not the case, why?

As always, there are giant corporations with big money involved and continuing with our current prime minister’s agenda, we are going to do whatever keeps the U.S. happy (see Bending Over for Bush post).Many people have heard of Monsanto, which is the largest or at least most public supplier of GE seeds to farmers. Older people will remember Monsanto as the creator of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. To quickly summarize, Monsanto eventually got into the seed business after the war and began manufacturing weed killer. However the product became so strong that it was killing not only weeds but crops as well. As a solution, Monsanto began selling GE seeds that would not be killed by their weed killer. Essentially if you sprayed your crops with this killer everything would die except for the GE crops, this is the only visible difference between natural crops and GE ones.

So for people that oppose GE foods that’s problem number one, I don’t want to ingest any food that has been sprayed with such strong fertilizer that it would be dead without changing the DNA of the seed. And it is estimated that around 70% of the food Canadians eat are either GE foods or contain GE ingredients.The next concern is an obvious one, with such a new product we don’t know the implications of eating GE foods. There are no long term studies. However most countries aren’t taking chances, China, Mexico and most of Africa are among nations that have banned GE Foods.

The next issue with labelling is that without it, there is no way to trace any health effects back to GE foods. If I have a violent reaction to something I ate and it had GE ingredients, there is no way for me or my doctor to document it without the labelling. So it is easy for opponents of the labelling to argue that GE foods are exactly the same when it’s impossible to link any side effects to it.

Organic farmers have a problem with GE foods as well, because it is almost impossible to avoid contaminations. Wind, birds, and pollination are all ways that natural and organic crops can be contaminated by GE foods.

And here’s where it gets really, really messy. For the first time in history, Monsanto and other companies are able to copyright their seeds. It used to be that no one could have a copyright on anything living, however now that GE foods are on the market this has changed. Monsanto has taken advantage of this by saying that farmers who buy their seeds can only use them once; forcing them to re-buy seeds every year or face a lawsuit.

So what happens if you are an organic farmer who has had their crops contaminated for one reason or another by GE seeds? Who owns the crops and who is responsible? A recent landmark case involving Percy Schmeiser was brought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and it was decided that if your farm gets contaminated by GE seeds, it is your fault and your responsibility to pay Monsanto or whoever infringement fees. Unless you want to pay every year for new seeds, it is your responsibility to keep GE foods away from your land.

Another way to look at it is, if you have grown a tree on your land even for a hundred years and it gets contaminated by GE seeds, it is now property of Monsanto or whoever owns the right the GE seed.

The scary part about all this is not just the ramifications for Canadian farmers, but for farmers in third world countries. What happens when GE products inevitably end up contaminating farms in Guatemala for example? Most farmers don’t have the resources to keep GE foods out (which almost impossible anyways) or to pay settlement fees to buy their crops back.

Monsanto is a really powerful corporation however this doesn’t immediately mean that it can stop bills from being passed in parliament. Although it helps to have former Monsanto employees now working in parliament and former politicians working for Monsanto. It’s a little bit like Bush’s government, which is full of former oil company executives. (http://www.purefood.org/monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm)

This is all a very brief and simplified explanation of the facts involving GE foods and getting them labelled. Anyone looking for more information, I encourage you to click on the links below and check out the documentary “The Future of Food”.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

http://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=home

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/AboutFOF.htm

It's Tradition

2008-08-15T17:09:00.000-07:00

There are very few arguments that rival ‘tradition’ as the most annoying, irrelevant, and inconsistent defense (except for the ‘It’s what god intended’ justification). Examples of when this argument would be used are debates involving whaling, bullfighting, or the annual seal hunt.
I won’t go into detail as to what my arguments are regarding each of those topics but my point is that the ‘tradition’ argument falls flat which is probably why it’s only used when people are really reaching.

I wouldn’t go so far as to dismiss traditions completely; I know that most contribute to cultures and bind us to our history. However, traditions can end because of new education, social acceptance, or even because of inconvenience. Which is why saying “it’s the way it’s always been done” really doesn’t mean anything.

Many of our ancestors had some fun little traditions that could have been maintained for traditions sake:

• Owning slaves
• Marrying your cousins
• Chastity Belts
• Foot binding
• Offering human sacrifices

Therefore I believe that if ever in an argument someone justifies their reasoning with ‘it’s tradition!’ they immediately lose all credibility, dismissed from the debate, and immediately stoned (just kidding).

Aquariums

2008-08-15T17:08:00.002-07:00

As someone who is adamantly opposed to aquariums (and zoos but that’s for another rant), I hear the same tired arguments all the time:

“It gives people a chance to appreciate ocean life first hand”

Actually I think it does the opposite, by turning the complex workings of an ocean into a sideshow. I think that keeping wild animals captive insults and patronizes how intelligent these animals are (and they are intelligent, whales are just behind humans and apes in intelligence).What kind of respect for nature is being taught when keeping animals in confined spaces for personal motives is the example being set? (Just to be clear, I’m not talking about starfish or algae rather the larger animals that are forced to live in tanks)

“It provides priceless education”

Not buying it. Does every single man, woman and child need to go into space to learn about or understand it?

“Aquariums serve as a sanctuary for rescued animals”

This one is outright laughable. The mortality rate is high for animals that are captured for captivity, both during the capturing process and during their life in captivity. In addition, how are we determining what animals need to be rescued? The Vancouver Aquarium for example, is allowed to capture or import wildlife if it is in ‘distress’ however there are various definitions for distress. The animal could very well be in distress due to the enormous boat chasing it. Then animals are only kept if they can not be rehabilitated, although the larger mammals are rarely released (it might have something to do with their value, an orca whale is worth approx $25,000).

I’ve never heard anyone argue that these creatures are happier in their tanks because I guess not even the biggest tools believe that anymore. Whales and dolphins spend their lives covering thousands of miles while travelling in groups, singing and composing songs that they will repeat every year. This a lifestyle that is completely denied to them in an aquarium. And although it’s very nice of aquariums to ‘rescue’ animals in ‘distress’, their track record argues that they can’t provide a healthy life environment: http://www.straight.com/print/151900, or http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=63

“The animals have trainers that love them”

I have no doubt that trainers love the animals that they work with however it’s beside the point and completely naive. Isolation and withholding food are common methods to train these animals despite how much they love them.

I guess my biggest gripe is not with the people who capture these sea animals, the selfish trainers, nor is it with the fat cats who run aquariums; it’s with the people creating a demand for such a spectacle. Paying money to see a lonely animal confined to swimming circles in an empty tank isn’t my idea of entertainment. It just seems like a sad paradox that we consider ourselves the most advanced species on the planet but forcing a depressed animal to jump around in the water for food is what will still consider entertaining.

Where will Santa live?

2008-08-15T17:08:00.001-07:00

Apparently the North Pole could very well be melted by the end of this summer:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html

This is one of those rare occasions where I don't have anything to say. I mean, is anyone surprised? We are constantly reminded of the dooms-day consequences of our actions and the actions of generations before us, so is this a shock?

Japan Needs a PR Agent

2008-08-15T17:07:00.000-07:00

You know that feeling you get when you discover something that is a complete outrage and you’re not the least bit surprised? Well, the honor of that feeling today goes to the Japanese government (not unfamiliar with causing these emotions).

Japan is notorious for its whaling laws and moratoriums that they don’t bother to enforce, claiming that the thousands of whales they kill annually are for ‘scientific research’. If this is true then Japanese scientists are the biggest tools in the shed. Researchers reporting on an animal species don’t usually decimate them in the process, but hey, I’m no scientist.

Well, Japan has repeatedly tried to defend itself by insisting that they are not exceeding the yearly whaling quota despite various reports and evidence that the industry has just gone underground. However Greenpeace recently provided indisputable proof that the government was lying while using tax payer’s dollars to support an unsustainable and corrupt industry.

Now, if Japan were a celebrity a PR expert would step in and give some image advice to the country. First we would hear a heartfelt apologize which would be followed by a stint in rehab, a promise to make amends by community service and then maybe a picture of Japan kissing a baby at rally against global warming.

However Japan doesn’t have a PR person giving them good advice, which is why they proceeded to arrest the Greenpeace activists that exposed them. So if you have a minute I encourage you to follow this link and send a letter to Japanese officials letting them know that their bonehead decisions aren’t going unnoticed:
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/outrage-greenpeace-whale-meat

Bending Over for Bush

2008-08-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

Have you heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? If you have no idea what I’m talking about then I don’t blame you, because our government isn’t taking great pains to enlighten the people on the small ‘teakings’ our country’s regulations.

The SPP brought together Prime Minister Harper, President Bush, and President Calderon (of Mexico) in order to achieve “a better quality of life for you and for businesses.” Hmm… I don’t know about you but it’s been a while since I’ve seen people demanding their government provide a greater quality of life for businesses, especially since I doubt this is going to be helpful for the Mom & Pop shops down the street.

The official SPP website says:
“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.”

This description, like the entire website is vague and feels slightly ‘Big Brother-esque’ but the SPP essentially means that we as Canadians can’t really do anything without the U.S.’s permission first. We are essentially aligning our environmental, trade, immigration, and terrorism policies with our southern neighbors.

The U.S. hasn’t had the most impressive track record with their ‘War on Terror’, so I find little satisfaction in knowing that my tax dollars will be supporting it. Plus it means that if my name resembles a suspectived terrorist then I can be barred from air travel(although I have attended a vegan potluck so I think I’m tagged myself…see previous blog)?

And of course, if we are dealing with President Bush we are dealing with oil. The SPP gives the US better access to oil from both Canada and Mexico and I know that most Canadians are very concerned about who we are going to GIVE our oil too. And you know what? Why don’t we throw in some clean Canadian water in that deal too? Because the SPP discussions included giving large amounts of water away too, although the tar sands are ensuring that we won’t have much clean water left anyways… but that’s another blog.

The ‘Fact vs. Myth’ page on the official SPP page boasts that ‘no agreement was ever signed’. Um, does anyone think that is a good thing? It’s as if the leaders of our countries are laughing at us saying “Oh, all that paper work was such a pain in the ass so we just skipped it!” Without a signed agreement how do we know if anyone has breached it? Without anything in writing how do we citizens know what our governments are committing to? Without anything in writing, how do us citizens or the people we elect vote against it?

However we can all take comfort in knowing that our leaders have chosen some outside representatives to participate in SPP discussions, leaders of huge corporations and military officials have been included to voice their opinions.

Excluding public opinion was no mistake because if people had been allowed to vote on it, it would have been dismissed immediately. According to the Council of Canadians, most of us completely disagree with the SPP:
(http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/notcounting/index.html)

Although statistics show that we are completely disagree with pretty much everything the SPP sets out to accomplish, it’s still being implemented. Does anyone else think this is absolutely LUDICROUS? We like to think ourselves a democratic society but our government does whatever the hell they want and seem to just give its citizens the finger when it comes to public opinion.

Which makes me when are we going to stop bending over for Bush?

Governments in Secret

2008-08-15T17:05:00.002-07:00

One thing that pisses me off the most about our current Canadian government is the secrecy. I’d rather have them flaunt their corruption and broken promises in my face….like an honest person.

A government is supposed to be FOR THE PEOPLE! We elect these inadequate officials to represent us and our needs so it is a complete paradox to have a government make decisions in private.

Besides, making changes quietly admits guilt (at least that’s what it says to me). Take this article for instance:
http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/news/contentposting?newsitemid=lakes-mining&feedname=cbc-tech-science-v3&show=false&number=0&showbyline=true&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=t&pagenumber=1

The conservatives defend their choice and although it’s completely short-sighted, they appear to have done some (one-sided) research. So why not make this public and stand by your decision?
This solution of dumping toxic waste in Canadian lakes reminds me of small children sweeping all their toys under the bed when they can’t watch TV until their room is clean.

This article comes out the same day that it has been publicized that our government has also ‘quietly’ committed $420 billion towards our military. Now whether I agree with the lakes solution or if this money is well spent is beside the point, it’s that these decisions are being announced in a way to avoid public reaction or input.

Not only is this trend beyond annoying, it’s scary. If we aren’t allowed to be the watchdog of our own government, we could eventually be ‘quietly’ updated on what our rights are and aren’t.

My Problem with Plastic

2008-08-15T17:05:00.001-07:00

Plastic. Where do I begin? I could honestly write a novel titled ‘My Problem with Plastic’ but then my editor would probably force me to include a romantic sub-story and call it my memoir which would eventually be exposed as a ‘novel based on true events’ and then I would have to apologize to Canadians while being interviewed by Don Cherry, so I’ll just keep this topic to a blog.

Anyways, I’ll begin my gripe with plastics at the beginning. Ironically Alexander Parkes invented plastic in 1862 to help save the elephants. That’s right people, plastic was invented to help the wildlife. Before plastic, ivory from elephant tusks was used in everything from billiard balls to toothpicks.

It took a while for the invention to catch on, as plastic only became commonly used in the last few decades but when it did, it caught on like wildfire.

For instance, plastic bags were only introduced in the 1970’s and although an entire generation hasn’t even passed, they’re already the #1 item found in landfills (we go through about 1.2 trillion a year). And why are we using plastic, something that will take almost forever to go away for products that we use for less than an hour? The estimated half-life for a plastic bag is 500 years, but then again no one knows for sure because plastic doesn’t break down like other matters. Plastic is never broken down by bacteria, instead it keeps breaking into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic that eventually find its way into our air and food.

So problem #1 with plastic is that it is made to last forever but is used for a nano second.
In addition, when plastic is recycled it’s just a bull***t process that eases people’s conscious. Now I’m not saying we stop recycling immediately but we can’t assume that it’s the answer to all of our plastic woes. For instance, when plastic is recycled (which is more complicated than recycling glass or metals) it is melted down and releases toxic chemicals into the air.

So although recycling plastic is essential, it doesn’t justify our extensive use of the material.
Thus problem #2 with plastic is that even when plastic is recycled our air and health is put in jeopardy.

Plastics have been making the news quite frequently lately, it seems that we’re constantly being alerted to different plastics that children shouldn’t be playing with or that we shouldn’t be heating up or that shouldn’t be used to carry our drinking water.

Today plastic has never been more prevalent and it has a history of being linked to cancers and other illness which have also never been more prevalent (Don’t believe me? Check out www.cancer.ca).

Problem #3 is that plastics are likely harmful to our health and the reason I say likely is because the material is relatively new and widely used, we haven’t been able to judge its effects on an entire generation yet.

Finally, my last gripe (#4) with plastic is that it’s made from petroleum!! Now, the oil companies claim that plastic is made from a by-product from drilling oil that would otherwise be discarded and wasted. However I have two questions: Would the waste that is discarded bio-degrade like a natural material? And aren’t we trying to lesson our dependency on oil anyways? By buying plastic and continuing to have it in our everyday lives we are supporting a shady oil industry which is another blog in itself.

Stupid Girls

2008-08-15T17:04:00.001-07:00

Ahhh, Jessica Simpson.... This is the girl that made a career out of being the stupid blonde on tv and then proudly declared that she was only playing dumb to appeal to a mass audience.

She reminds me of that pathetic girl in high school who pretends they are stupid so their meat-head boyfriend won't feel threatened by their intelligence.

Not that the girl has that much relevance these days aside for making the odd US Weekly cover for your love triangle between your boyfriend and your father (ew).

The reason I bring her up is because she was recently seen wearing a shirt that said "Real Girls Eat Meat". Now, in a couple of weeks is she going to make the statement that she is only pretending to be an insulting and ignorant person to appeal to rednecks?

A little note to Jessica Simpson:
Real girls make educated and intelligent decisionsReal girls don't boast about their vain, disgusting, habitsReal girls don't 'pretend' they're stupid to be popular or for a paycheque.

I suggest someone send Jessica a t-shirt with this picture on it:
http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/fall00/slaughter.gif

Plastic Island

2008-08-15T17:03:00.000-07:00

One of my biggest grips about humanity is our 'out of sight, out of mind’ mentality, once something is put in the garbage and taken away by the garbage man (or woman no discrimination here!) it’s gone forever. We hear statistics on how much waste is accumulated annually but our cities our so clean and we never see any of it so how bad can it be?
The answer is it’s bad, and a lot of it ends up in our water.

Greenpeace estimates that 10% of ALL plastic ends up in the ocean. Just think of how much plastic you go through in a week, from packaging on a chocolate bar to empty pens to old toys to appliances to WHATEVER. 10% ends up in the water (or approximately 10 million tons annually).

Well we don’t see that much plastic at the beach so where is it? The answer is Plastic Island or the Plastic Vortex and the reason we don’t see photos of it everywhere is because it’s all underwater. But it’s there in the Pacific Ocean and it’s said to between the size of Texas and the size of the U.S.A.

I think that the detrimental effects of this are obvious (highly toxic pollutants in our water from the plastic which ends up concentrated in the fish that most people eat, destroying wild life and ecosystems….etc) , but for those who need a visual:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Sea-Plastic-LN-PG5oct05a.jpg

Essentially after garbage and debris make their way into our beaches (from wind, litter, or from ships) it is picked up by the current and the ocean’s vortexes until it gets stuck in the ones between North America and Asia. I’ve heard people ask “Why don’t we remove it?”. Well, again it’s under water, it’s the size of Texas, and where do we put it? And like all issues, governments usually don’t tackle these things on their own until a huge public outcry (even then they drag their feet).

So what do we do? I usually don’t recommend solutions on this blog because for the most part I think these solutions are usually pretty obvious but aren’t used because they are considered inconvenient: Banning plastic bags are a good step but I think we shold ban plastic, examine our outlandish consumption, habits, and force ourselves to really be responsible for our garbage which is more than just putting it in the garbage can.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with why plastic is public enemy #1, that will be tomorrow’s topic.

Killing Time

2008-08-15T17:02:00.000-07:00

There are alot of campaigns and fundraisers that are so obviously self-served that it makes the average consumer weary of a company's intentions (please see on of my earlier blogs on green washing).

However I have found a link that genuinely seems to benefit everyone involved. Sponsors get alot of page views, people get rice, and I'm improving my vocabulary.

Enjoy:
http://www.freerice.com/

Animal Owners

2008-08-15T17:00:00.000-07:00

I recently went down to my local animal shelter to find a cat to add to my family. Although all the felines there were crazy and fun, eventually I found the perfect one (a shout out to the cat-tastic Dr. Jones!).

Anyways, as I was speaking to one of the employees at the shelter I began to discover new lows in the human race. I'm not just talking about the outright animal abusers, who are so obviously the vilest humans on the planet. No I'm talking about people that view animals like returnable and disposable products.

I was introduced to a 10 year old cat that was left at the shelter after her family decided to get a new puppy and a kitten. What sort of lesson is this for your kids? As soon as it becomes inconvenient, buy a younger one and then leave your responsibility for someone else to take care of?

People with that view and tendencies don't deserve pets. Seriously, that is disgusting.
An animal isn't a sweater or a couch, although society has shown that the majority of people don't bother to be responsible for that type of waste either.

An adopted animal is now a part of your family which means if you move, you find a home for your ENTIRE family. If your pet becomes sick, then you make whatever decision is necessary to take care of it (even if the humane thing is to put it down).

I'm not talking about people who find another loving home for their pet because the current situation isn't working for anyone involved. There are unavoidable situations where a pet isn't happy or the owner can't care for it, but finding another home means fulfilling your responsibilities.

I think part of the problem is that some people expect pets to be a constant source of fun but in reality they are thinking, feeling, creatures that experience boredom, depression, and love like us.

'That's Gross."

2008-08-15T16:59:00.002-07:00

Alright, I know I rant about a lot of things but this is definitely in my list of top five topics that make me wish I had an inhaler.

So I’m sitting in the lunch room:

Girl reading the newspaper: Oh my god did you read this? About that horse that went to the slaughterhouse after it lost only one race?

Me: Um yeah that’s gross.

GRN: That’s soo disgusting, like seriously does anyone eat that?

This girl then proceeds to take a giant mouthful of beef stew.

I know there’s a whole psychological thing with animals that have been domesticated, but I will never understand how eating one type of meat is gross but if you buy another type in a grocery store it’s completely fine. It’s all flesh and it’s all disgusting.

Another thing that really pisses me off are people who acknowledge how disgusting and vile the slaughtering process is but then say ‘I just don’t want to think about it’ or ‘I just can’t sit through videos of that stuff’. If you can’t bear to watch footage of what your diet is supporting then you shouldn’t be supporting it. Period.

I think these videos should be shown in schools:
http://www.goveg.com/ui_cows.asp

Al Gore

2008-08-15T16:59:00.001-07:00

Al Gore has done some fantastic things for the environmental movement and he's been promoting the cause long before it was in vogue to do so. The man seems genuinely committed to conservation without an ulterior motive. There’s just one thing that seems quite odd to me, why isn’t he a vegetarian?

I know, even I’m thinking “The man won a Nobel Prize! Isn’t there someone better to pick on!?!” And I’m sure there is, however I don’t believe that being a vegetarian is a small detail when it comes to being environmentally aware.

As Peta has said, it’s strange that Al Gore is promoting an eco-friendly lifestyle but only the lifestyle choices that are convenient to him.

Here are just some random facts on the meat industry which Al Gore, the man credited with bringing global warming mainstream is still supporting with his carnivorous lifestyle:

• An area of rainforest the size of 7 football fields is destroyed every minute to make room for grazing cattle, a vegetarian saves 1 acre of trees annually
• 1 pound of beef requires approx. 2500 gallons of water, 1 pound of soy requires approx. 250
• More than 1/3 of fossil fuels produced in the US goes towards raising animals for food
• A vegan diet does more to reduce emissions than driving a hybrid car
• 10 people can be fed with the grain that goes to feeding one cow that provides for one person

Plus, even Oprah is going vegan. So can anyone tell me, what gives with Al Gore?

Nuclear Power

2008-08-15T16:53:00.000-07:00

Lately governments (mine at least), have been assuring us that nuclear power is the way of the future. It produces vast amounts of energy without depositing endless tones of carbon into our atmosphere. It’s been around for forever, and now here it is to solve our problems. It’s too good to be true. And it is.

There are a few aspects of nuclear power that are missing from these commercials that feature flowers blooming, children playing, and clear blue skies.
Where do I start?

Let’s start with the most obvious. Nuclear power plants have a history of accidents and nuclear leaks. Let’s say that we have 100 power plants in our country (like the US) and only one of them has an accident in 20 years. That accident could be anything from a terrorist attack to a plane crash to the plant just getting old with the potential for leaks. I guess that’s a good average but that 1 accident will result in highly radioactive fuel leaking into the surrounding environment. This scenario has proven to cause cancers of all sorts for anyone or anything within miles of the area and will leave the area contaminated for generations to come.

Alright, now suppose that risk isn’t convincing and we can delude ourselves into thinking that as long as we take the correct precautions we can avoid an accident like that. Then I suggest we investigate the theory of nuclear power as ‘clean’ power.

It is true that the actual use of nuclear power for energy is ‘clean’ in the sense that there are no emissions during the process of extracting energy. However looking at only one step of a process is naïve, similar to if you were to conclude that a J.Lo movie will be an Oscar winner after seeing a preview.

The most common first step of nuclear power is extracting uranium from the ore and ore from the ground, a messy process to say the least and lucky for us Canadians we are the #1 exporter of uranium ore. At best, ore can contain 1% uranium which means that enormous amounts of ore needs to be processed to get even a little uranium. After the ore is processed it is left in a powdered state which is just as radioactive as uranium and is hazardous for approx. 250,000 years. The mining of uranium usually then contaminates the air, water, and land with radioactive chemicals and heavy metals.

After uranium is mined and then used for power there’s also the small issue of waste. Currently there is no safe way to dispose of radioactive waste. There are currently no examples of nuclear waste staying in an insolated environment for tens of thousands of years, which is about its half life.

That’s a lot of waste that isn’t going anywhere from the 441 nuclear power plants that are currently operating in the world.

Oh yeah one other thing: if uranium mining is being funded by governments for nuclear power plants, then isn’t there a potential for some of that energy being dedicated toward weapons?

Terrorist Scarf

2008-08-15T16:33:00.001-07:00

Anyone can tell that I’m all for being socially aware and active. I may disagree with your cause or not even care at all but at least you’re doing something about it. Fight the power man!
Sometimes however, I wish people would use their energy on more pressing issues:
http://www.usmagazine.com/rachael-ray-ad-pulled-by-dunkin-donuts

Ok, I get it. But, seriously? Let’s consider this ad and Rachel Ray’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’

1. Was anyone seriously offended? Or was this just an opportunity for Conservatives to demonstrate their ‘war on terror’. Why not use your time fighting ‘the axis of evil’ then impressing on people’s civil liberties of being allowed to wear pretty much whatever the hell they want?

2. After seeing this ad did anyone run out, buy one of those scarves and decide that they’d missed their calling as a suicide bomber?

3. Does anyone believe that Dunkin Doughnuts has a secret initiative to promote terrorist activities? I don’t even think they serve ‘freedom fries’
And another point: since when does that traditional Arab headdress IMMEDIATELY equate with Muslim extremism? I guess anyone who wears one of these hats
(http://www.shorelineoftahoe.com/store/images/W/B8-B8K13101-05.jpg) obviously supports Castro and socialism.

What bothers me even more is that Dunkin’ Doughnuts gave creditability to these allegations by removing the ad! Yeah, I know they don’t want to offend anyone but by removing the ad they are essentially agreeing that there is something offensive about the scarf.

All this ranting has made me want to go shopping, anyone know where I can get that cute scarf?

The next great threat to national security....

2008-08-15T16:32:00.001-07:00

I don’t know if the following story is absolutely hysterical or a sign of the apocalypse.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/21/fbi-looking-for-vega.html

I can just imagine this coming from the top after a conversation like this:

Dick Cheney: Well sir, we have yet to locate Osama Bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or any sort of proof indicating guilt for 90% of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

George Bush: Drat.

CondoleezzaRice: Despite that sir, I believe there is a greater threat to our nation’s security and constitution.

GB: Homosexuals? Democrats? Hippies?

CR: Actually sir you are somewhat correct. I’m talking about VEGANS.

DC: They are going to ruin the country!!

CR: He’s right, they go against everything that America is built on. They believe in environmental preservation, animal compassion, health, and social awareness. I also believe that most them try to bike to work.

DC: That’s disgusting. We need to infiltrate their gatherings and generate the main threats and suspects immediately.

GB: I like it. And I think we should call them “The Alliance of Destruction & Doom”, how can America not fight something with that name? Otherwise you are supporting Destruction and doom. Simple as that.

CR: I like it.

DC: Well our time is up, I feel like we made some real progress. I’ll send a memo to the FBI, the NRA, and Bill O’Reilly. I guess we’ll just have to make time to talk about our $400 billion dollar deficit next time.

My Hero

2008-08-15T16:31:00.001-07:00

I’m guessing that for anyone who has taken the time to read this blog (all 5 of you…. thanks mom) will know that a lot of things really irritate me. You’re probably wondering: “Do you like anything or anyone? You kill-joy!”

That is a fair enough question, since I seem to find issue with everything and everyone. BUT, there is one man that can do no wrong and that is Mr. Paul Watson. Those of you familiar with him know that there are no neutral feelings on this guy.

A quick history of Paul Watson for those of you who are confused: he is one of the founding members of Greenpeace who then left (or was expelled depending on who you ask) when he felt there wasn’t enough direct action. He then went on to find a ship of his own, create “The Sea Shepherd” organization, sink an illegal whaling ship, get arrested and have his boat seized, escape and then go back to steal his boat back.

Some other highlights of his life include being shot in the chest by a Japanese marksman, paying the Canadian government his $10,000 bail in toonies after protesting the annual seal hunt, and is rumored to have created “tree spiking” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking).
Seriously, this guy is a hero. He takes action when governments are either too afraid or corrupt to intervene and he also keeps a record of how many illegal whaling or fishing ships he’s sunk on his ship.

Some may say he’s a radical but I say it’s people like him we should be worshipping and following in magazines instead of the latest teen star in rehab. Agree with him or not you have to admire someone who will stop at virtually nothing to protect what he believes in.

Greenwashing

2008-08-15T16:30:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest crimes of business right now is the practice of ‘greenwashing ‘. How many times have you been watching TV and ad comes on:

“we care about your children’s future and the future of our planet, which is why our product is greener than ever... brought to you by Clorox”

Makes you wonder, did they just raise the price and buy some carbon offsets? Seriously, I’ve seen CAR COMPANIES advertise their products as ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’... IT’S STILL A FREAKIN CAR. That’s like saying Paris Hilton is now ‘Chastity friendly’.

The thing that is most irksome is that the terms ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’, etc. are mostly undefined which means that nobody is launching a lawsuit against any corporationS for false and misleading advertising.

Technically a product is ‘now greener than ever’ if it’s now only 99.99% toxic, down from the entire 100%.I like to make a parallel between this trend in products to people losing weight. Generally anybody with half a brain knows that for most of the population you only need to eat somewhat healthy and get daily exercise. THAT’S IT. Yet the diet industry is a multibillion dollar industry supported by everyone trying to find an easy short cut.

Now to bring my theory around, anybody with half a brain knows that chemicals are harmful and end up in our water and air, that driving a car is bad, and most of the superfluous products and excessive packaging end up in our oceans and overflowing dumps. Yet because bleach is now ‘greener than ever!’ we can excuse ourselves from buying it and tons of other products.

Therefore I’m not even going to bother going into what choices are society should be making because I’m positive we already know however it’s too inconvenient to acknowledge it. Besides that air freshener has such a cute new label.

ps. If you would like some more examples of companies taking advantage of this new trend and basically lying to the public, check out: http://stopgreenwash.org/

" I could never be a veggie"

2008-08-15T16:29:00.001-07:00

People who know me know never to say “I could never give up meat”. They know they’ll get some ugly rant from me where I end up sweating and spitting when I talk. Why? Because that statement is just a pathetic attempt to avoid taking responsibility for what you put in your mouth.

When a person says this they are claiming that they could not survive without meat and therefore should never attempt to try a healthier, more humane, and environmentally friendly diet.

I have yet to hear of any person that physically cannot survive without flesh. Of course we’ve all ‘had a friend that went vegan and got violently ill.’ Let’s get two things straight:

1. That’s probably not true.

2. If it is true, then your friend is a complete moron and probably did no research before they cut everything out at once. (Step by step people!)
What should be said is “I don’t want to ever try changing my habits that have a disastrous ripple effect on everything that lives”.

Eating meat is an environmental, social, animal cruelty, and health epidemic. Some people argue that if it’s that horrendous then why we don’t hear more about it. Well, how long did it take for the world to realize that smoking had dire consequences? The meat industry is the current tobacco industry. Don’t believe me? Do some research, just don’t try telling me you could never give it up because I might find I could never give up throwing vegetables at anyone who buys from hot dog stands.

Celebrities

2008-08-15T16:27:00.000-07:00

Celebrities can be really irritating and I'm not just talking about the narcissism, indulgence, and insulting our intelligence with half the things they hawk at us.

No, what I am rambling about today is 'green celebrities'. Now, I know there are some stars that are generally committed to an ecologically balanced future but for the most part it's really hard to take them seriously when they're never seen wearing an outfit twice.

Who am I going to pick on today? Jennifer Aniston. I recently read that she has gone ‘green’ by cutting down her water consumption by brushing her teeth in the shower…. Ok that doesn’t really work. Isn’t brushing your teeth in the shower like leaving a huge faucet running while you brush?

Also, the woman is a spokesperson for bottled water. Bottled water is not only an enormously ridiculously concept (we pay up to a 300% markup on something WE GET FOR FREE), but the whole industry creates large amounts of waste, consumes oil (measure a quarter of the water in the bottle and that’s the amount of oil it takes to produce it), and even recycling the containers puts fumes in the air.

So it seems you’re a friend of the environment if you promote an extremely un-environmental product, jet around the world, and eat meat as long as you try and multi-task in your shower in your mansion.

Therefore if celebrities are as influential as they seem to think they are then they partially to blame for the incredibly low standards we seem to hold ourselves to.

An Introduction

2008-08-15T16:25:00.000-07:00

As someone who has been an activist most of my life I know that to create change there are a number of tactics of persuasion. Mostly you need to demonstrate to people how they will directly benefit from a new conceptor, sometimes guilt works.

I believe that a person is smart but society... well it has shown me to be a group that drags their feet towards change and seems to take action in the very last moments or when it is seemingly too late.

Remember that there are many ambitious and driven people out there making positive contributions, but this is not what my blog is about.

As you can tell by the title I'm an angry activist, in fact I'm frustrated, pissed off, disheartened, and sometimes disgusted. These are emotions I rarely share since they are not in the top persuasal techniques, in fact they mostly just cause people to distance themselves from you.
But I have a feeling that I'm not the only one that feels this way.

That's why I'm using this annoymous forum to say what I really feel. I'm tired of patting my friends on the back for switching off their lights when they leave the room or offering a high five to my family when they took the time to watch "An Unconvenient Truth".

It's estimated that we lose 100 SPECIES EVERY DAY, that half of all species are going to be extinct within 100 years, and we're just beginning to phase out plastic bags!?! Seriously, I feel like we should all be wearing perscription helmets at this point and consider letting another species dominate this planet for a while.

In conculsion, while I attend rallies, protests, write letters, and continue to persuade everyone I know to make changes, I will use this blog to say how I really feel.

I encourage you to let me know how you really feel!

A Double Existence

2008-08-15T16:19:00.000-07:00

For some of you scanning the internet this blog probably looks familiar.

That's because I have the exact same blog on blog.ca but I'm going to conduct and experience and see if I can get more traffic on this blog site.