Author: Diego Estigarribia

The Chinese government just approved one of the world’s largest protected areas, creating a giant panda reserve three times as big as Yellowstone National Park, and spanning three Chinese provinces. The reserve will connect approximately 67 existing panda reserves on six separated mountain ranges in Gansu, Shaanxi and Sichuan provinces, totaling 10,476 square miles (27,134 sq km).

China state news agency Xinhua reported that merging the panda reserves will hopefully allow the pandas to mate with a larger population, creating a more diverse gene pool and higher numbers overall.

The merged park will aim to clear up confusing jurisdictional issues that occur when pandas cross provincial boundaries and allow for better accountability of the pandas.

The main threat to the 1,864 wild pandas is habitat loss from human activity, natural disasters, and climate change. China is hoping to increase the panda population to 2,000 by 2025, though the animals are notoriously difficult to breed.

In order to allow the pandas to roam freely on the new reserve, China will be relocating 170,000 people in Sichuan province.

Hou Rong, director of the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding hailed the new reserve as “a haven for biodiversity and provide protection for the whole ecological system.” In addition to the pandas, 8,000 other endangered animal and plants will benefit from the new national park.

source by://leonardodicaprio.org

Today, Donald Trump signed an executive order taking aim at America’s climate policies. On the heels of a report finding that the world needs to halve its carbon pollution every decade to avoid dangerous climate change, Trump’s order would instead increase America’s carbon pollution, to the exclusive benefit of the fossil fuel industry.

Trump’s anti-climate executive orders

One part of the executive order tells the EPA to review and revise (weaken) its Clean Power Plan and methane regulations. However, revising these regulations isn’t so simple. It requires proceeding through the same years-long rulemaking process the EPA used to create the rules in the first place. This involves considering the scientific evidence, crafting draft rules, responding to millions of public comments, and defending the new plan in court. Environmental attorneys are confident “this is another deal President Trump won’t be able to close.”

A second part of the executive order tells the EPA to ignore the government’s estimated price on carbon pollution. The Republican Party wants to lower the current estimate, but most evidence indicates the government is dramaticallyunderestimating the cost of carbon pollution. Trump gets around this inconvenient evidence by ordering the EPA to simply deny the existence of those costs.

A third part of the executive order ends a moratorium on new coal leases on public lands before a review is completed to determine if taxpayers are being shortchanged due to the lands being sold too cheaply. Environmental groups are set to immediately challenge this order. Regardless, lifting the moratorium would have little effect on coal production or mining jobs.

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt would undoubtedly be happy to follow Trump’s orders. In his previous job as Oklahoma Attorney General and fossil fuel industry puppet, one of Pruitt’s 14 lawsuits against the EPA was aimed at the Clean Power Plan. However, the Clean Air Act requires the government to cut carbon pollution. Trump and Pruitt may not like it, but the law, scientific evidence, and public opinion fall squarely against them.

Trump’s anti-science budget

A few weeks ago, Donald Trump released his first proposed budget, and it’s also fiercely anti-science and anti-climate

 

source by:/ theguardian.com

An estimated 30 percent of food is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer level, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 

Perhaps you didn’t even check to see if the food was still good before throwing it in the trash.

You looked at the “Best by” date – or myriad other possible product date labels, from “Enjoy by” and “Sell by” to “Best before” – on the carton or box, and finding the date had passed, pitched the food without further thought. In fact, it might have been OK to eat after all. Experts say consumer confusion over varied and undefined product date labels for consumers and retailers increases our food waste.

“Food scraps are the No. 2 thing in landfills; No. 1 is paper,” says Sharon Palmer, a dietitian specializing in plant-based nutrition and a food writer who has written about reducing food waste; she adds that much of that paper goes to packaging foods. For food that really is bad or rotten – such as vegetable and fruit wastes – composting is another option to keep it out of the landfill, and that’s something Palmer advises. But even before food goes out the door – whether in the garbage or to a compost heap – experts say consumers should do a double take to make sure it really is food gone bad, and not, say, perfectly good dinner betrayed by a confusing product date label.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an estimated 30 percent of food is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer level. In December, the USDA issued guidance urging food manufacturers and retailers to voluntarily only use a “Best if Used By” date label, so it can be easily understood by consumers that the date is an indicator of quality, rather than safety.

Then last month, two major industry trade associations, the Food Marketing Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, launched their own joint initiative to reduce consumer confusion about product date labels, seeking to similarly whittle down about a dozen commonly used labels to two. One of the labels recommended is “Best if Used By,” to describe product quality, like when a product might not taste as good – or is stale or a drink that is a little flat after that date, says Andrew Harig, senior director of sustainability, tax and trade at Food Marketing Institute, a trade association that represents food wholesalers and retailers. But it’s still safe to consume after that date. The other date label proposed to streamline labeling and reduce consumer confusion is simply “Use By.” This applies to the few products that are highly perishable or for which there may be a food safety concern over time, like poultry.

The FMI and GMA are encouraging manufacturers and retailers to immediately begin phasing in common wording right away and urging widespread adoption of the standardized product date labels by summer 2018.

Additionally, the label “Freeze by” could be added, Harig says, because there are many products that can be frozen, such as chicken or meat, to significantly increase how long they keep and can be eaten. “If you just keep it in the refrigerator, it’s got a much shorter life,” he says.

But apart from infant formula, the federal government doesn’t regulate any product date labels. FDA regulations require a “use by” date on each container of infant formula after which a package or container of infant formula shouldn’t be fed to infants, according to the agency. However, in most cases the goals of balancing safety concerns, not wanting to eat something that tastes gross and trying to do right by the planet – to reduce food waste – require effort and discernment on the part of the consumer that go beyond checking a date on a product.

For starters, consider how long food typically lasts by category, if not frozen. Plan to consume fresh cut meats and unsealed deli counter meats within three to five days and ground meat, poultry and fresh fish in one to two days, says Nancy Farrell, a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and registered dietitian nutritionist in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

“Meats should always be stored on the bottom shelf of the refrigerator – it’s the coldest part of the refrigerator,” she says. “Very importantly, doing so is a food safety precaution, as it would prevent meat juices from dripping onto other food products.” Spoiled and uncooked meats, poultry and eggs can be a breeding ground for bacteria like salmonella, which results in about 1.2 million illnesses and 450 deaths each year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though cooking generally helps, heat alone can’t remove all danger from consuming spoiled foods, like meats. Some bacteria like Clostridium bear spores that can cause illness and are resistant to cooking or freezing.

Farrell says milk should be consumed within a week after opening, and eggs can last three weeks in their cartons. Just don’t put them on refrigerator door shelves, she says, where they’re more susceptible to temperature fluctuations from the door opening and closing. Much of food safety comes down to proper storage and preparation, experts say. And apps, including Is My Food Safe? from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and The FoodKeeper developed by FMI, Cornell University’s Department of Food Science and the USDA, along with an accompanying database, can help consumers ensure they’re properly preparing foods – like cooking it to the right temperature – and better gauge when it’s OK to eat or best to pitch it for quality, freshness or safety reasons.

Your habits in the kitchen play a central role in ensuring food safety, Palmer says. “For example, anything that you’re not going to cook – that could be lettuces, cilantro, your slicing tomatoes – you definitely want to make sure you have a clean countertop [and] a cutting board that hasn’t been contaminated, especially with meat,” she says. Careful cleaning reduces a risk for cross-contamination, such as with bacteria.

source by/: usnew.com

 

Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has dismissed a basic scientific understanding of climate change by denying that carbon dioxide emissions are a primary cause of global warming.

Pruitt said on Thursday that he did not believe that the release of CO2, a heat-trapping gas, was pushing global temperatures upwards.

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he told CNBC.

“But we don’t know that yet … We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”

This stance puts Pruitt at odds with his own agency, which states on its website that carbon dioxide is the “primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change”. This finding is backed by Nasa, which calls CO2 “the most important long-lived ‘forcing’ of climate change”.

Scientists have understood for more than a century that CO2 traps heat. Atmospheric concentrations of the gas have increased by more than a third since the industrial revolution, driven by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from 2014, which summarized the findings of 2,000 international scientists, states it is “extremely likely” that the steep rise in CO2, along with other greenhouse gases such as methane, has caused most of the global warming experienced since the 1950s.

Pruitt’s comments were quickly condemned by scientists, environmental activists and even his immediate predecessor as EPA chief, Gina McCarthy.

“The world of science is about empirical evidence, not beliefs,” said McCarthy, an appointee of Barack Obama. “When it comes to climate change, the evidence is robust and overwhelmingly clear that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high.

“I cannot imagine what additional information the administrator might want from scientists for him to understand that.”

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said: “Pruitt has demonstrated that he is unqualified to run the EPA or any agency. There is no doubt whatsoever that the planet is warming, and it is primarily due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels.

“Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we can demonstrate clearly that the observed warming of the planet would not have occurred without that change in atmospheric composition. These are scientific facts, not opinion, and it is incumbent on politicians to take account of the scientific evidence.”

Pruitt has previously equivocated on the issue of climate change, telling his Senate confirmation hearing that while he accepts the world is warming it is “hard to measure with precision” the human influence.

 

A core EPA function is the regulation of greenhouse gases, including CO2. Pruitt, in his previous role as attorney general of Oklahoma, sued the EPA to halt Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which imposes emissions limits on coal-fired power plants.

The plan, similar to many of the other Obama-era policies to combat climate change and safeguard clean air and water, is likely to be dismantled by the Trump administration. The president has previously called the EPA a “disgrace” and promised to reduce it to “tidbits” in order to spark economic growth.

The EPA faces severe cuts under a proposed White House budget proposal, with Pruitt set to review the agency’s role in vehicle emissions standards, methane emissions and protection of America’s waterways.

Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times while attorney general of Oklahoma and has worked in concert with fossil fuel interests in many of these cases. The recent release of thousands of Pruitt’s emails during his tenure showed an extremely close relationship between Pruitt’s office and oil and gas companies.

The EPA administrator has insisted that the regulator does work that could be delegated to the states, has overreached and needs to be reined in.

“There are a lot of changes that need to take place at my agency to restore the rule of law and federalism,” Pruitt said last month.

 

Amnesty International is blaming two oil giants for more than 500 oil spills in Nigeria’s Niger Delta in 2014. The area has been mismanaged for decades. Could the upcoming election bring a solution?

 

 

 

 

 

It’s David versus Goliath in the oil-rich Niger Delta. On one side are Royal Dutch Shell – the fourth largest company in the world – and ENI, Italy’s biggest industrial enterprise. On the other side are the local people: 40 different ethnic groups, with 70 percent of the population living below the poverty line.

The companies have been conducting large-scale oil extraction in the Niger Delta for many years. Amnesty International has leveled heavy criticism: A recent analysis has come to the conclusion that the companies are responsible for more than 550 oil spills within just one year.

“Last year Shell reported 204 separate oil spills, while ENI – which operates in a smaller area – reported 394 spills,” says Mark Dummett, a researcher on the business and human rights team of Amnesty International. “The number of oil spills occurring in the Niger Delta is really disturbing.”

According to the companies, 5 million liters (1.3 million gallons) of oil were spilled during that time. But Dummett doubts those figures are correct: “According to past research, companies underestimate the amount of oil that is spilled.”

Such spills can be caused by accidents, corrosion, or poor maintenance. Also sabotage plays a role – as oil is a valuable good, people sometimes tap the pipes to siphon it away – and then leave the holes without plugging them back up. While Shell in its statistics for 2014 lists the majority of spills as “sabotage/theft,” voices of local communities claim there are other reasons behind the spills.

 

The Niger Delta makes up more than 7 percent of Nigeria’s total land mass, covering an area of 20,000 square kilometers (12,000 square miles). It is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, comprising four ecological zones: coastal barrier islands, mangrove swamps, freshwater swamps and lowland rainforests.

Drilling here began in the 1950s. By now, 2.5 million barrels of oils are produced every day. The delta makes Nigeria the most oil-rich country in Africa. But corruption and weak governance translate into little environmental oversight or regulation.

The impacts of oil spills on the Niger Delta are devastating: Mangrove forests are being obliterated, fish and shellfish are dying off, and whole ecosystems are collapsing.

This also affects local inhabitants, says Amnesty Internationals Dummett, who traveled to the delta mid-March: “I met people who were forced to take their children out of school because they couldn’t catch the fish that they needed to earn a living,” he told DW. “The amount of harm that’s been done to both the environment, and the people who rely on the environment, is really enormous.”

Environmental groups are calling for the companies to properly clean up these spills when they occur. But activists say that time and time again, this isn’t happening. And the effects of oil spills – especially since they are not remediated – last for a very long time.

Past success stories

Besides demanding that companies clean up, communities are also seeking compensation. And one recent case has a documented legacy: After major spills in 2008 and 2009, Shell agreed in early 2015 to pay the residents of the town of Bodo in the Niger Delta 76 million euros ($81 million) as compensation for environmental pollution.

This represents the largest payout to any African community following environmental damage. The amount that the individuals will receive is equivalent to several years of wages.

“Hopefully this will serve as a precedent, and other communities will come forward and bring similar suits,” says Drummet. However, whether the spills of Shell and ENI in 2014 will lead to similar successful claims by local residents is uncertain: The Bodo case was handled by a court in the United Kingdom.

According to Amnesty International, hundreds of cases have been brought against Shell and the other companies in Nigeria – but the legal system is very slow.

Upcoming elections

This March 28, elections will take place in Nigeria. Drummet hopes that pollution in the Niger Delta will be among the topics the new president will work on. “Both the major candidates – President Jonathan and the main challenger Buhari – have talked about cleanup of the Niger Delta,” he said. “It is a major national issue, because it affects so many people.”

Amnesty International has now also asked the Italian Government to investigate what’s happening in ENI’s Nigerian operations. There is general agreement that a long-term solution to environmental problems in the Niger Delta can only be solved on the political level.

 

This power plant in Belarus another example of a solar project on the site of the Chernobyl disaster

          Two Chinese solar companies have announced a plan to build a large solar farm in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The solar farm is expected to output over 1 gigawatt of power.

The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a 1000 square mile area around the Chernobyl nuclear plant that has remained largely uninhabited and unused since the disaster in 1986. The high levels of radiation make the zone unsuitable for typical land uses like agriculture or forestry.

Vista aérea de la ciudad de Prypat, que tuvo que ser evacuada tras el accidente de la central nuclear de chernobyl

However, the site is an excellent choice for the location of a large solar farm. Not only is the land cheap and unused, but there is already substantial electrical infrastructure in place left over from the nuclear plant.

Ukraine has been trying to find an investor to build a large solar farm in the exclusion zone for several months, and it seems two Chinese energy companies are interested. The companies, GCL System Integration Technology and China National Complete Engineering Corp (CCEC), will cooperate to build the farm.

GCL will build and install the solar components, while CCEC will manage and supervise the entire project. Neither company disclosed where exactly the solar farm would be built, or how much the project will cost.

     Is the food you and your family eat everyday really free from synthetic chemical pesticides? 

 

To know how organic food actually affects your body, two Japanese families, both with two children who usually eat mostly conventional food, challenged themselves to switch their diet to 100% organic food for 10 days.

These two families decided to switch over to organic food.

 

“My second daughter was suffering from allergic reactions when she was an infant. I thought her sensitivities to allergies might have been caused by food…” – Ms Hirukawa.

“I don’t think the impact on adults is big but we have children, so I’m worried about the impact on their bodies.” – Ms Naka.

Before and after 10 days, urine samples from these two families were collected and tested to check for different levels of pesticides in their bodies. The study was commissioned by Greenpeace Japan and testing samples were analysed at independent laboratory in Germany (full report here).

We found that pesticides levels in the urine showed a striking decrease after eating organic food, and that there were comparatively higher levels of some pesticides among the four children, compared to the adults.

Before

After

Children can be very susceptible to the effects of toxic chemicals as their organs are still in development. A child’s developing brain is also more susceptible to neurotoxicants, and the dose of pesticides per body weight is likely to be higher in children due to their small size.

The study shows that eating organic food is an effective way to reduce chemical pesticides in the body. But to promote really “chemical pesticides free” life, the solution is to switch diet to ecological food or  “eco food”.

So, what is “eco food”?

Eco food and organic food have many things in common. Both are crops or livestock grown without chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, GMOs or antibiotics. But eco food goes a step further in that is also means food that is​ locally grown, seasonal, nutritious and promotes biodiversity. It is independently produced by innovative farmers, who receive a fair remuneration for their crops.

Will you take the challenge?

It seems the greatest barrier to more families eating more organic food  isn’t the lack of benefits for people and the planet, but its availability and affordability. Consumers can make a real difference to this situation by letting the retailers that you shop from know that you want to change how you eat.

source by www.greenpeace.org

The world’s apes and monkeys are in serious trouble.

About 60% of Earth’s non-human primate species, including apes, monkeys, gorillas, gibbons and lemurs, are threatened with extinction and about 75% have declining populations, according to a study published Wednesday.

“This truly is the 11th hour for many of these creatures,” said University of Illinois anthropology professor Paul Garber, who co-led the study.

In the case of the Hainan gibbon, a species of ape in China, fewer than 30 animals remain on the planet. The population of the Grauer’s gorilla fell from 17,000 in the mid-90s to around 3,800 today, mainly from hunting and mining, the study said. And 22 out of the 26 primate species in China are endangered, Garber said.

Those and many other species will disappear in the next 25 years unless conservation becomes a global priority, Garber said. Of the 500 species of primates in the world, about 300 are threatened or endangered.



Humanity’s population expansion is the main cause for the extinction threat, with 5 billion humans living in countries with primates. Habitat loss due to logging, mining and agriculture; hunting; the illegal pet trade; and climate change are all top reasons for the decline, Garber said. “Most of this has gone on in the past 100 years,” he added.

The study, which involved dozens of authors from around the world, is the most comprehensive review of the world’s primates ever conducted, the researchers say.

Calling primates the “canary in the coal mine,” Garber said that humans will eventually also not be able to live where primates are having trouble surviving now if “we continue to pollute the environment.”

“Governments, non-governmental organizations, corporations and citizens have to come together to change business as usual,” he said. “Now is the moment.”

Jan Vertefeuille of the World Wildlife Fund, who was not part of the study, said the report “raises the alarm” about the plight of these species.

“The problem seems far away but there are a few easy things consumers in the U.S. can do to help take some of the pressure off,” she said. Insisting on responsibly harvested wood products, recycled or Forest Stewardship Council-certified paper, sustainable palm oil and beef are just some of those ways.

The study appeared in the journal Science Advances, a peer-reviewed publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/01/18/primates-apes-monkeys-extinction/96724398/