Joe goes to DC
Joe 2010
Joe 09
Joe 2008
Joe 2007
Joe 2006
Joe 2005
- My Blog - Zebra3Report
Camp Homebound
R.N.C. 2008

New items on this page will be added at the top

He  who  finds  a  thought  that  enables  him
to  obtain   a slightly  deeper  glimpse  into
the  eternal  secrets  of  nature
has  been  given  great  grace.
- Albert Einstein

The Guilty Planet Blog


Jennifer Jacquet is a postdoctoral research fellow working with Dr. Daniel Pauly and the Sea Around Us Project at the UBC Fisheries Centre. As a kid, she read 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do to Save the Earth and would come to discover that while those 50 things were indeed simple, saving the Earth was not


Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Projects & Publications

July 30-August 1, 2010: Attending Sci Foo Camp hosted by Nature, O'Reilly and Google at the Googleplex, Mountain View, CA.

June 19, 2010: Presenting at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Annual Meeting at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

May 2010: Counting fish: A typology for fisheries catch data published in The Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences.

May 3-7, 2010: Workshop: Incorporating Appropriate Ecological Baselines into Management of Ocean Resources at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

April 24, 2010: Q&A following a screening of The End of the Line at the Food Film Festival in Portland, Oregon.

March 12, 2010: Presenting at the World Affairs Conference of Northern California in San Francisco.

February 21, 2010: Co-organizing and presenting on the panel Preserving the Global Commons Through Conservation and Cooperation at the AAAS meeting in San Diego.

January-March 2010: Visiting lecturer at the Scripps Insitution of Oceanography, UCSD. Co-teaching Topics in Marine Conservation with Jeremy Jackson.

November 2009: Conserving Wild Fish in a Sea of Market-Based Efforts published online at Oryx

August 14, 2009: Dan Ax at Avukado Productions makes the following short video for Guilty Planet:

July 30, 2009: Successfully defended Ph.D. dissertation Fish as Food in an Age of Globalization at the University of British Columbia.

June 2009: Published at Conservation Biology: What Can Conservationists Learn from Investor Behavior?

May 27, 2009: Talk titled "Historical Renaming and Mislabeling of Fish" given the Oceans Past II conference in Vancouver, B.C.

May 24, 2009: Talk at the International Marine Conservation Congress in Washington, D.C.

March 24, 2009: Dave Beck and I showcase our jellyfish burger in Scientific American's photo gallery:


March 24, 2009: Talk at the Student Conference for Conservation Science at Cambridge University, UK.

March 14, 2009: Talk at the Kettle's Yard Problemathon for Cambridge's Science Festival.

March 3, 2009: Talk titled "Guilt v. Shame in Market Based Efforts to Save Our Fish" at the Max Planck Institute in Ploen, Germany.

February 27, 2009: Talk at Fauna & Flora International.

January-March 2009: Visiting researcher with Bill Sutherland's lab in the Conservation Science Group at the University of Cambridge.

November 2008: A new study In hot soup: sharks captured in Ecuador's waters published in Environmental Sciences.

November 2008:

Food Is All the Rage: Why Not Be Outrageous? | Main | The Duel for Cool: Monotremes v. Syngnathidae

More on Giving Up Seafood...

Category: Food SystemsGuiltSeafood
Posted on: June 19, 2009 10:25 AM, by Jennifer L. Jacquet

Not to beat a dead horse (although that horse could possibly help alleviate the demand for tuna) but I wanted to clarify some of the arguments against eating seafood or, rather, in favor of marine life. Here I address some specific (and broader) questions in response to my recent posts.

Isn't there sustainably harvested seafood out there we can eat?
In theory, we should be able to harvest seafood sustainably. I am not ruling out this possibility, although most scientists are very hard pressed to name several truly sustainably managed fisheries (note on the rule of sustainability: things should stay the same). Given the current state of fisheries management, though, it is hard to ensure what you are eating is ecologically sound. Many 'sustainable fisheries' have negative consequences on the species that rely on them for food or the species that are caught as bycatch. Also note: in theory, we could also harvest whales, manatees, and dolphins sustainably. That doesn't mean we should.

Why focus on a personal boycott?
My work does not focus on a personal boycott (to date in the scientific literature I have argued for better seafood labeling, eliminating subsidies, and banning the use of fishmeal in livestock feed) but someone out there should be voicing a boycott as an option. This is not because the consumption by one individual will make a difference but mainly because, from a theoretical standpoint, fish need a wider spectrum of voices. At present, the conservation community (and consumers, too, of course) fundamentally relates to most marine life as commodities rather than wildlife. Plus, many consumers suffer cognitive dissonance when we say: the oceans are totally screwed but just eat this rather than that and things will improve. A radical problem calls for (at least the presence of) a radical solution.

Name one species of shellfish that is extinct.
In part due to the viscosity of aquatic habitats, ubiquitous extinctions in the marine environment are rare. But ecological extinctions (the reduction of a species to such low abundance that, although it is still present in the community, it no longer interacts significantly with other species) are common, even among shellfish. West coast abalone populations are nothing what they used to be. Chesapeake Bay oysters are less than 4 percent what they were 150 years ago. Giant clams near Eritrea disappeared upon human arrival.

How about the premise of eating local when it comes to seafood?
It's a nice idea but unrealistic for the majority of Americans. The U.S. imports 80% of its seafood from 13,000 different suppliers from 160 different countries.

Are farmed fish the solution?
Not to be the wettest of blankets (although that might fit a marine scientist), but I don't like this idea, either. There are plenty of people advocating for fish farming and this industry (one of the fastest growing globally) is working to improve its practices. But even if we were able to get the ecological side of fish farming (and the potential for mad cow disease in farmed fish) under control, we have to contend with the issue of domestication. We have seen a rapid domestication of marine species in the last several decades. I do not like the idea of domesticating the planet's last remaining wildlife and so no reason why we are required to do it.

What about all the people who depend on fish and fishing for suvival?
I have said this repeatedly, but I do not think that food insecure populations should consider giving up anything, unless it's on account of health reasons. Tackling issues of abstinence/personal consumption, while worthy and intriguing, is really a luxury pastime.

What about my health?
Seafood is not as healthy as people think (more on this to come). Aside from having to deal with the dangers of accumulation of mercury and PCBs prevalent in marine carnivores, several medical studies came out this year affirming that, at best, fish oils are just one factor of many that may reduce health ailments, such as heart disease. The medical researchers found that people who do not eat fish, such as vegetarians, are not at any greater risk of illness.

In conclusion, we should consider giving up seafood for the following reasons:




Hi Joe Anybody,

Together, we did it.

According to our latest count, 417,000 Americans have called on the EPA to hold our nation's biggest polluters accountable for their global warming pollution -- far surpassing our coalition-wide goal of 300,000 public comments.

Until now, the most meaningful U.S. efforts to fight global warming have taken place outside of Washington. Our advocates and activists have helped win dozens of new state and regional initiatives to cut global warming pollution and repower our economy with clean energy.

Citing our research, The New York Times noted in an editorial last Monday, "These states and cities shed a hopeful light on what this nation and others can and must achieve." [1]

Thanks to 417,000 Americans like you, we're ready to take it to the federal level -- with a plan to enforce, for the first time ever, Clean Air Act limits on global warming pollution from coal-burning power plants and other big smokestack industries.

With one of the largest outpourings of public support in EPA history, we've given the Obama administration the strong backing it needs to see this plan through in the next few months.

However, Washington D.C. being Washington D.C., obstacles remain. Sen. Lisa Murkowski -- ironically, from Alaska, the state most quickly and dramatically being affected by global warming -- is pushing Congress to block President Obama from using the Clean Air Act to limit global warming pollution. [2]

Meanwhile, solving global warming remains a long-term challenge. Today, we've reached a critical milestone. Thanks, as always, for making it all possible.

Nicole Forbes
Environment Oregon Field Organizer

Ronnie Trash

In a warming world, scientists have told us to expect more rain and less snow in the Northwest -- but not less overall precipitation.

New evidence, however, suggests that both rain and snowfall may decrease across the region during dry years.

Even in the rain-drenched Northwest, the trend could escalate water conflicts if it continues. Farmers, conservationists and city water managers would face severe challenges trying to balance human needs with the survival requirements of endangered salmon that need cold, clean, rushing water.

Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service looked for changes in the amount of water flowing out of mountain basins since 1948 at 43 rivers and streams across Oregon, Washington, Idaho and western Montana.

Few rivers showed significant declines in runoff until researchers isolated the driest 25 percent of years.

Then nearly three-quarters of river basins showed severe decreases in water flow. Runoff fell by 30 percent or greater in most streams, and by nearly 50 percent at some locations during dry years.

"And those are really important years," says study author Charlie Luce, a Forest Service research hydrologist in Boise.

"Those are the years that test the trees, whether they live, die, or catch on fire. Those are the years that test the fish, that test the farmers and the water managers." The journal Geophysical Research Letters published the study online Aug. 22.

Previous studies found little or no change in river flow or annual precipitation because they looked at average or median values. The region's average annual precipitation actually increased by about 10 percent over the past century, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Philip Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, says the new findings are important and "potentially very worrisome."

"But we can't be sure these trends will continue," Mote says.

Global warming
The pattern found in the new study runs contrary to predictions based on computer simulations of global warming. Those suggest the Northwest should continue to receive about the same amount of precipitation but that runoff will peak earlier and leave rivers emptier in hot summer months.

That's because rising temperatures are likely to cause more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow and the mountain snowpack to melt earlier in the spring. In a new forecast for western Washington, for instance, Susan Dickerson and Robert Mitchell at Western Washington University in Bellingham predict increases in winter flows, decreases in summer flows, and a shift toward earlier spring snowmelt as the regional climate warms.

"The biggest hydrologic change is a shift in timing of flow, not a change in total annual flow," Mote says. Since 1920, snow accumulation in Northwest mountains has fallen about 25 percent, Mote has calculated.

The new findings paint a more complicated picture. Not only will we see more rain and earlier snowmelts, but we also could see significant decreases in overall precipitation during drought years.

"It would just be harder and harder to keep farming this dry ground if the dry years get worse," says Gary Westcott, who grew up on a ranch in eastern Oregon and has run a small farm near Vale since 1979.

Droughts have hit Northwest farmers hard in recent years. Federal officials in 2002 halted irrigation to about 1,200 farms to shield endangered Klamath Basin fish from a worsening drought. That brought an estimated net loss of $27 million to $46 million in crop revenues, of which taxpayers covered about $30 million in emergency payments.

In 2005, Gov. Ted Kulongoski declared drought disaster emergencies in six counties. In 2007, some eastern Oregon rivers produced about a third of their average runoff, and some reservoirs ran dry months before the end of the growing season.

Impact on irrigation
In his years of farming, Westcott hasn't noted an increased severity in drought years. Rather, he says, drought seems more frequent.

Drier winters would undermine plans to extend irrigation with more reservoirs. Washington passed a law in 2006 creating a Columbia River management plan calling for new reservoirs for eastern Washington farmers. Kulongoski has backed the idea of building water storage areas in eastern Oregon to help farmers and maintain instream flows for fish.

The new study doesn't prove that dry years are getting drier because of less rain and snow, just that rivers run much lower than they did decades ago.

"It is not clear whether precipitation is decreasing, or whether water use is increasing," says Julia Jones, an associate professor in the department of forest ecosystems and society at Oregon State University.

In the Northwest, forests consume huge amounts of water. Dense, tall stands of native Douglas firs can soak up more than 40 percent of the precipitation that falls in a river basin.

Several land use changes since the 1950s have tended to increase water use, Jones says. Fire suppression has allowed forests to expand in some basins. Clear-cutting of old growth and replanting young, fast-growing trees has increased water consumption in summer. In some watersheds, deep-rooted trees that extract more water than grasses are overtaking abandoned farm fields and pastures.

Warmer springs and falls, due to climate change, could extend the growing season of trees and shrubs -- and their water intake.

No matter the cause, if the trends are real, Jones says, the potential for water conflicts will increase.

Climate models
Because climate models don't point to decreasing precipitation, says Mote, the OSU climate scientist, rising greenhouse gases may have nothing to do with decreased runoff in dry years. "You can't conclude based on this study that climate models are missing something."

Luce agrees that it's impossible to link greenhouse gases and a warming climate to less precipitation in dry years. But he says the evidence is fairly strong that the decreases in river runoff are the result of less rain and snow and that the shift is contrary to climate models. Luce plans to extend his analysis to precipitation records but says those records aren't as reliable as the numbers on runoff.

To account for changes in water use, Luce tracked forest water consumption and evaporative losses in one river basin and found that those water losses could not explain the decreases in river flow. Luce and co-author Z.A. Holden with the Forest Service in Missoula, Mont., also noted sharp decreases in flow in two river basins in which large tracts of forest had been lost to fires -- which should have increased runoff by allowing more precipitation to reach streams.

Luce speculates that changes in the Pacific Ocean circulation pattern known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation may be the driving force behind his findings. Scientists have linked shifts in the El Nino cycle to droughts in some regions and torrential rains in others. In recent years, some researchers have proposed that global warming may be altering El Nino events and intensifying droughts.

But researchers don't know enough to predict how the El Nino cycle will respond to future climate warming.

"Climate models embody the theory as we understand it," Luce says. "Now we've got a new set of observations that don't quite agree with the theory. People can go out and refine the theory."

Birth defects show human price of coal

Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:02am EDT

By Phyllis Xu and Lucy Hornby

GAOJIAGOU, China (Reuters) -

Ten-year old Yilong is already a statistic.

Born at the center of China's coal industry, the boy is mentally handicapped and is unable to speak. He is one of many such children in Shanxi province, where coal has brought riches to a few, jobs for many, and environmental pollution that experts say has led to a high number of babies born with birth defects.

Experts say coal mining and processing has given Shanxi a rate of birth defects six times higher than China's national average, which is already high by global standards.

"They looked normal when they were born. But they were still unable to talk or walk over a year later," said farmer Hu Yongliang, 38, whose two older children are mentally handicapped.

"They learnt to walk at the age of six or seven. They are very weak. Nobody knows what the problem is."

Hu's thirteen-year-old daughter Yimei can only say one word, while her brother Yilong is unable to talk at all. The two spend most of the day playing in their small courtyard, where their mother Wang Caiying tends to their every need and tries to shield them from the neighbors' prejudice.

"I never let them go out, I don't want people to laugh at my children. They stay in this courtyard every day," said Wang, who looks older than her 36 years.

"I am especially worried about my son. He doesn't know how to take care of himself. I have to do everything for him."

The number of birth defects in Chinese infants soared nearly 40 percent from 2001 to 2006, China's National Population and Family Planning Commission said in a 2007 report.

The rate of babies born with birth defects rose from 104.9 per 10,000 births in 2001, to 145.5 in 2006, affecting nearly one in 10 families, the report said.

Infants with birth defects accounted for about 4 to 6 percent of total births every year, or 800,000 to 1.2 million babies, higher than World Health Organization estimates that about 3 to 5 percent of children worldwide are born with birth defects.

"The fact that the rate of birth defects in Shanxi province is higher is related to environmental pollution caused by the high level of energy production and burning of coal," said Pan Xiaochuan, a professor from Peking University's Occupational and Environmental health department. Pan has been doing research into the health effects of pollution in Shanxi for several years.

Neural tube defects were the most common form of defect found in babies in Shanxi, Pan said, though congenital heart disease, additional fingers and toes, and cleft palettes were also common.


China, home to some of the world's most polluted cities, has pledged to cut emissions and clean up its environment, laid waste by decades of breakneck development.

But lax local enforcement and an insatiable demand for energy to feed its booming economy undermine environmental policy goals.

China's ministry of health last week said it would give folic acid supplements to 12 million rural women to try to reduce the rate of defects, especially the neurological defects that are most common and easily prevented with such supplements.

Defects often strike in the poorest families, who can barely afford medical fees let alone care for their children once they reach adulthood.

The meager 10,000 yuan (1,600 US dollars) a year Hu earns transporting goods leaves almost nothing to pay for medical expenses for his two children.

The family's hopes are now pinned on their youngest, a six-month old boy named Yiwu, whose blood tests show he was spared his siblings' afflictions. His parents want Yiwu to be a doctor when he grows up.

Like many other villages in southwest Shanxi, Gaojiagou is surrounded by at least a dozen mines that spew out millions of tons of coal every year to feed China's power plants and steel mills.

Many Gaojiagou villagers suffer from coughs or respiratory illnesses caused by the dust that clouds the air. Their water source has also been polluted by mining, they say.

"Before every family got drinking water from the well in the courtyard," Hao said as water the color of weak tea rushed out of a hose into a metal washbasin. "But now the water in the well is so polluted by the coal mines and washeries around our village, we cannot drink it any more."

(Additional reporting by Jimmy Jian; Editing by Megan Goldin)

It’s the End of the Road

for Bush-Era Power Plant

Mercury Cap-and-Trade Rule

Washington, DC 

2.23.09 -- The United States Supreme Court this morning issued an order declining to consider overturning a decision invalidating and vacating a Bush-era rulemaking allowing cap and trade of toxic mercury emitted by the U.S. power industry.

The lower federal court in 2008, comparing the Bush administration's logic to that of the dangerously irrational Queen of Hearts character in Alice in Wonderland, held 3-0 that the Environmental Protection Agency rule violated the Clean Air Act by evading mandatory cuts in toxic mercury pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case finally and completely invalidates the so-called "Clean Air Mercury Rule," which would have allowed dangerously high levels of mercury pollution to persist under a weak cap-and-trade program that would not have taken full effect until well beyond 2020.

Fourteen states and dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups, and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians challenged the EPA's suite of rules in 2005. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rebuked EPA for attempting to create an illegal loophole for the power generating industry, rather than applying the toughest emission standards of the Clean Air Act. The states challenging this EPA rule are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.

"The Supreme Court has now confirmed that EPA must follow the law as it is written. We are looking forward to working on rules that reflect the most stringent controls achievable for this industry, as the Clean Air Act requires," said Ann Weeks, attorney for Clean Air Task Force who represented U.S. PIRG, Ohio Environmental Council, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Conservation Law Foundation in the case. "That's what is needed now, if we are ever to alleviate the problem of mercury contamination in fish and wildlife."

The Supreme Court also granted the Obama administration's request -- made two weeks ago -- to drop the Bush administration appeal.

"Today's good news is due in no small part to the leadership of the Obama administration, in renouncing the harmful Bush administration actions and embracing EPA's responsibilities to protect the American people against mercury and other toxic pollution," said John Walke, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.  "Administrator Jackson has a special opportunity to clean up harmful air pollution from power plants once and for all and her leadership so far bodes well for the future."

Among the groups involved in last year's successful court challenge was Earthjustice, who argued the case before the lower court on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club.

Approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants spew 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat. Over 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all waterbodies in the state.

"While we applaud this ruling, mercury contamination from coal fired utilities continues to grow as new plants are approved for construction," said Chesapeake Bay Foundation Director of Litigation Jon Mueller. "Every year in the Chesapeake Bay region additional fish consumption advisories are issued.  EPA must take action quickly to curtail this threat to public health."

Power plants also emit tens of thousands of tons of other air toxics, including hydrogen chloride, arsenic and lead.

"Industry's desperate, last-gasp effort to continue poisoning our waterways and communities with toxic mercury has met a fitting end," stated Waterkeeper Alliance Legal Director Scott Edwards. "We welcome the Court's decision as yet another step in our continuing efforts to put to rest, once and for all, the myth of clean coal."  

The EPA rules generated controversy from the moment they were proposed in 2004, when it was discovered that industry attorneys -- from the law firm from which EPA's political management hailed -- had drafted key language that EPA included verbatim in its proposal to let power plant companies off the hook. EPA's internal auditor in the Office of Inspector General later discovered that EPA's senior political management had ordered staff to work backwards from a pre-determined political outcome, "instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing [power plant] units were achieving in practice."

"We're relieved that the Supreme Court has put the final nail in the coffin of this ill-advised regulation, which left the Adirondacks and Catskills vulnerable to continued mercury contamination," said Neil Woodworth, executive director of the Adirondack Mountain Club. "Ninety-six percent of the lakes in the Adirondack region exceed the recommended EPA action level for methyl mercury in fish. In the Catskills, health officials have advised children and women of childbearing age not to eat fish from six Catskill reservoirs, reservoirs that also provide New York City with its drinking water. With this ruling, we can now move forward with sensible mercury controls that will help reverse these trends."


Jim Pew/Kathleen Sutcliffe, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500

posted here on 8/5/08  - -  video recorded 7/28/08

Forest  Defenders


Forest Defenders
Photographs by: Christopher LaMarca
Christopher LaMarca
studied Environmental Studies and Biology at the University of Oregon, a degree that led him to pursue photographic projects documenting environmental issues. His work on the protection of old growth forests against logging garnered him numerous awards, including PDN’s 30 New and Emerging Photographers To Watch and the NPPA’s Best of Photojournalism. His Forest Defenders project was featured in the 2006-2007 ICP triennial, Ecotopia, and was published in Aperture and Art Review. His clients include Volvo, Newsweek, Time, Fortune, The Fader, and Outside, among others.

click to go to the Pitchfork Rally videos

Pitchfork Rebellion and the
Rally to Save the Forests and
Preserve Civil Liberties Videos
Filmed in Portland Oregon

Future of Food - Introduction
There is a revolution going on in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America, a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat. THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.

To view and purchase the entire film please log onto



Here is an article from Mother Jones

News: Though global climate change is breaking out all around us, the U.S. news media has remained silent.

May/June 2005 Issue

Then as now, a prime tactic of the fossil fuel lobby centered on a clever manipulation of the ethic of journalistic balance. Any time reporters wrote stories about global warming, industry-funded naysayers demanded equal time in the name of balance. As a result, the press accorded the same weight to the industry-funded skeptics as it did to mainstream scientists, creating an enduring confusion in the public mind. To this day, many people are unsure whether global warming is real.


But because most reporters don’t have the time, curiosity, or professionalism to check out the science, they write equivocal stories with counterposing quotes that play directly into the hands of the oil and coal industries by keeping the public confused.

WHEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA was inundated by a foot of rain, several feet of snow, and lethal mudslides earlier this year, the news reports made no mention of climate change—even though virtually all climate scientists agree that the first consequence of a warmer atmosphere is a marked increase in extreme weather events. When four hurricanes of extraordinary strength tore through Florida last fall, there was little media attention paid to the fact that hurricanes are made more intense by warming ocean surface waters. And when one storm dumped five feet of water on southern Haiti in 48 hours last spring, no coverage mentioned that an early manifestation of a warming atmosphere is a significant rise in severe downpours.

Though global climate change is breaking out all around us, the U.S. news media has remained silent. Not because climate change is a bad story—to the contrary: Conflict is the lifeblood of journalism, and the climate issue is riven with conflict. Global warming policy pits the United States against most of the countries of the world. It’s a source of tension between the Bush administration and 29 states, nearly 100 cities, and scores of activist groups working to reduce emissions. And it has generated significant and acrimonious splits within the oil, auto, and insurance industries. These stories are begging to be written.


And they are being written—everywhere else in the world. One academic thesis completed in 2000 compared climate coverage in major U.S. and British newspapers and found that the issue received about three times as much play in the United Kingdom. Britain’s Guardian, to pick an obviously liberal example, accorded three times more coverage to the climate story than the Washington Post, more than twice that of the New York Times, and nearly five times that of the Los Angeles Times. In this country, the only consistent reporting on this issue comes from the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin, whose excellent stories are generally consigned to the paper’s Science Times section, and the Weather Channel—which at the beginning of 2004 started including references to climate change in its projections, and even hired an on-air climate expert.

Why the lack of major media attention to one of the biggest stories of this century? The reasons have to do with the culture of newsrooms, the misguided application of journalistic balance, the very human tendency to deny the magnitude of so overwhelming a threat, and, last though not least, a decade-long campaign of deception, disinformation, and, at times, intimidation by the fossil fuel lobby to keep this issue off the public radar screen.

The carbon lobby’s tactics can sometimes be heavy-handed; one television editor told me that his network had been threatened with a withdrawal of oil and automotive advertising after it ran a report suggesting a connection between a massive flood and climate change. But the most effective campaigns have been more subtly coercive. In the early 1990s, when climate scientists began to suspect that our burning of coal and oil was changing the earth’s climate, Western Fuels, then a $400 million coal cooperative, declared in its annual report that it was enlisting several scientists who were skeptical about climate change—Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer—as spokesmen. The coal industry paid these and a handful of other skeptics some $1 million over a three-year period and sent them around the country to speak to the press and the public. According to internal strategy papers I obtained at the time, the purpose of the campaign was “to reposition global warming as theory (not fact),” with an emphasis on targeting “older, less educated males,” and “younger, low-income women” in districts that received their electricity from coal, and who preferably had a representative on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Western Fuels campaign was extraordinarily successful. In a Newsweek poll conducted in 1991, before the spin began, 35 percent of respondents said they “worry a great deal” about global warming. By 1997 that figure had dropped by one-third, to 22 percent.

Then as now, a prime tactic of the fossil fuel lobby centered on a clever manipulation of the ethic of journalistic balance. Any time reporters wrote stories about global warming, industry-funded naysayers demanded equal time in the name of balance. As a result, the press accorded the same weight to the industry-funded skeptics as it did to mainstream scientists, creating an enduring confusion in the public mind. To this day, many people are unsure whether global warming is real.

Journalistic balance comes into play when a story involves opinion: Should gay marriage be legal? Should we invade Iraq? Should we promote bilingual education or English immersion? For such stories an ethical journalist is obligated to give each competing view its most articulate presentation and roughly equivalent space.

But when the subject is a matter of fact, the concept of balance is irrelevant. What we know about the climate comes from the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history—the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s conclusions, that the burning of fossil fuels is indeed causing significant shifts in the earth’s climate, have been corroborated by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the National Academy of Sciences. D. James Baker, former administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, echoed many scientists when he said, “There is a better scientific consensus on this than on any other issue I know—except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics.”

Granted, there are a few credentialed scientists who still claim climate change to be inconsequential. To give them their due, a reporter should learn where the weight of scientific opinion falls—and reflect that balance in his or her reporting. That would give mainstream scientists 95 percent of the story, with the skeptics getting a paragraph or two at the end.

But because most reporters don’t have the time, curiosity, or professionalism to check out the science, they write equivocal stories with counterposing quotes that play directly into the hands of the oil and coal industries by keeping the public confused.

Another major obstacle is the dominant culture of newsrooms. The fastest-rising journalists tend to make their bones covering politics, and so the lion’s share of press coverage of climate change has focused on the political machinations surrounding global warming rather than its consequences. In 1997, when the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the vote was covered as a political setback for the Clinton administration at the hands of congressional Republicans. (Predictably, the press paid little attention to a $13 million industry-funded advertising blitz in the run-up to that vote.) When President Bush pulled out of the Kyoto negotiating process in 2001, the coverage again focused not on the harm that would befall the planet as a result but on the resulting diplomatic tensions between the United States and the European Union.

Prior to 2001, Bush had declared he would not accept the findings of the IPCC—it was, after all, a U.N. body. “The jury’s still out,” he said, and called instead for a report from the National Academy of Sciences. That report, duly produced one month later, while professing uncertainty about exactly how much warming was attributable to one factor or another, affirmed that human activity was a major contributor. In covering Bush’s call for an American climate report, few reporters bothered to check whether the academy had already taken a position; had they done so, they would have found that as early as 1992, it had recommended strong measures to minimize climate impacts.

Finally, coverage of the climate crisis is one of many casualties of media conglomeration. With most news outlets now owned by major corporations and faceless investors, marketing strategy is replacing news judgment; celebrity coverage is on the rise, even as newspapers cut staff and fail to provide their remaining reporters the time they need to research complex stories.

Ultimately, however, the responsibility for the failure of the press lies neither with the carbon lobby nor with newsroom culture or even the commercialization of the news. It lies in the indifference or laziness of hundreds of editors and thousands of reporters who are betraying their professional obligation to their readers and viewers. Climate change constitutes an immense drama of very uncertain outcome. It is as important and compelling a story as any reporter could hope to work on. Perversely, for so great an opportunity, it is threatening to become the shame of the American press.


Japanese activists arrested:
Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were charged with theft and trespass by the prosecutor in Aomori after they exposed a major scandal around the embezzlement of whale meat from the Japanese government-sponsored Southern Ocean whaling program.

Greenpeace Activist Arrested in Japan 2008

It's been 23 days since my colleagues in our Greenpeace Japan office were arrested for exposing a whaling industry scandal. I'm sorry to tell you that today they were both formally charged with theft and trespass.

It's a sad day for all of us at Greenpeace. We're prepared to risk our lives to protect whales, but we didn't expect such a politically- motivated reaction by the Japanese government. In fact, the very same day our activists were arrested, the public prosecutor dropped the investigation into the true crime of embezzlement of whale meat from the Japanese government-sponsored
Southern Ocean whaling program.

The outpouring of support for Junichi and Toru has been amazing, and I can't thank you enough for your support. Almost a quarter of a million people have sent letters to the Japanese government calling for their release and demanding a full investigation into the whale meat embezzlement scandal. Protests have been held outside Japanese embassies and consulates in 35 cities across 30 countries.

We all want the same thing: It's time for the Japanese government to end whaling altogether instead of prosecuting peaceful protesters who exposed crimes within the whaling program.

Even though they've been charged, we're not giving up! We're still working hard to get Junichi and Toru out of detention, so if you haven't already written to the Japanese government yet,
please take action now! And please, spread the word as far and wide as you can - Junichi and Toru need your support more than ever.

I'll be in touch very soon as events unfold. Please keep Junichi and Toru in your thoughts and be ready to do
more to help secure their freedom.

In solidarity,
John Hocevar
Oceans Campaigner

July 11 2008

Natural Resources Defense Council
Report on 2/5/08
being used in The Ocean
  Portland Indy Media     2/8/08
Your generous support got us back to federal court, where we've
scored another big victory for whales -- this time over the
President of the United States!

Last night, a federal judge struck down a waiver issued by the
White House that would have exempted the U.S. Navy from obeying
a key environmental law during sonar training exercises that
endanger whales.

In doing so, the court affirmed the bedrock principle that we do
NOT live under an imperial presidency. Both the White House and
the military must obey and uphold our environmental laws.

Here's a great segment about our victory from today's "Morning
Edition" on National Public Radio:

President Bush's waiver was a last-ditch attempt to let the Navy
unleash an onslaught of military sonar off the coast of southern
California -- home to five endangered species of whales --
without taking precautions to protect marine mammals from a
lethal bombardment of sound.

Last month, the same judge -- U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie
Cooper -- ordered the Navy to put safeguards in place during the
sonar maneuvers in order to protect marine mammals from needless
injury and death. Shortly after that ruling, President Bush
issued his "emergency" waiver, attempting to override the
court's order.

In last night's ruling, Judge Cooper called the Navy's so-called
emergency "a creature of its own making," and reaffirmed that
the military can train effectively without needlessly harming

The Navy's maneuvers would take place near the Channel Islands
-- one of the world's most sensitive marine environments. The
Navy itself estimates that the booming sonar would harass or
harm marine mammals some 170,000 times -- and cause permanent
injury in more than 400 cases.

The far-reaching precautions imposed on the Navy by Judge Cooper
include a ban on mid-frequency sonar within 12 miles of the
California coast -- a zone that is heavily used by migrating
whales and dolphins -- and between the Channel Islands.

Make no mistake: we must be fully prepared to keep fighting for
those humane restrictions -- especially if the White House or
Navy appeals this decision to a higher court.

Your support and activism have taken us this far. I know you
will continue standing with us in the courtroom battles ahead --
until that day when whales no longer need to die for the sake of
military practice.


Frances Beinecke
Natural Resources Defense Council

I just received some terrific news and I wanted to share it with you right away, today is 12/12/2007.

This report below came in the form of an email from

"The Environmental Defense Network"

"auto industry's attempt"


A federal judge in California today rebuked the auto industry's attempt to block California and 16 other states from setting tough new limits on global warming pollution from automobiles, calling these efforts "the very definition of folly."

Environmental Defense was a defendant-intervener in the case. We worked closely with California state officials and several other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Blue Water Network, Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network.

In the ruling, Federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii rejected the auto industry's claim that federal fuel economy standards preempted the authority of California and other states to limit global warming pollution from automobiles.

This ruling comes three months to the day after a similar ruling by a federal judge in Vermont, and just eight months after the historic Supreme Court decision in early April that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an obligation to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

These are huge victories. Today's ruling shifts the focus to the EPA where a decision on whether to grant California's waiver request to tighten auto emission standards has been pending for two years.

I have just issued a press statement calling on EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to immediately grant California's request to move ahead with this program. All similar California air pollution requests have been approved. Not one has been turned down in EPA history.

In his ruling, Judge Ishii alluded to the importance of EPA granting the waiver. He wrote:

    Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded from action.

Environmental Defense played a big role in these historic court rulings. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to our General Counsel Jim Tripp and our Regional Director of our Climate and Air Program Jim Marston, who worked so hard on this case.

And, as always, I owe you my heartfelt thanks for all your support. You make our work possible and I can't thank you enough. Together, we are making progress.

As we look ahead to the new year and the need for a national, economy-wide cap on global warming pollution, please join me in celebrating today's terrific news.


Scientists find new species in Vietnam

Wed Sep 26, 8:14 AM ET

Scientists have discovered 11 new species of plants and animals in Vietnam, including a snake, two butterflies and five orchid varieties, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) said Wednesday.


The new species were found in a remote region known as the "Green Corridor" in Thua Thien Hue province in central Vietnam, it said.

"You only discover so many new species in very special places, and the Green Corridor is one of them," Chris Dickinson, WWF's chief technical adviser in the region, said in a statement.


The new snake species, the white-lipped keelback, generally lives close to streams and eats frogs and other small animals, WWF said. It has a yellow-white stripe along its head, red dots over its body and can reach a length of 31.5 inches.


The new butterfly species are among eight discovered in Thua Thien Hue since 1996. One is a "skipper," a butterfly that flies in a quick, darting motion. It is from the genus Zela. The other is from a new genus in the subfamily Satyrinae.


Three of the new orchid species are leafless, which is unusual for orchids, WWF said.


The other new plant species include one in the aspidistra family, which produces a black flower and can subsist in low light, and an arum, which produces yellow flowers surrounded by funnel-shaped leaves, it said.

"It's great news for Vietnam," said Bernard O'Callaghan, Vietnam program coordinator for the World Conservation Union. "The jungles and mountains of Vietnam are fascinating places and they continue to surprise scientists."

All the new species are exclusive to tropical forests in Vietnam's Annamites mountain range, which offers unique habitats.


All species in the area are under threat from illegal logging, hunting and development.


Many threatened species live in the Green Corridor, including the white-cheeked crested gibbon, one of the world's most endangered primates.


Water sources

in the Philippines contaminated by electronics production


Earth First Significant levels of toxic chemicals are contaminating important water sources in the Philippines, Greenpeace revealed today during a press conference in Quezon City. Greenpeace made the expose in the report ‘Cutting Edge Contamination: A study of environmental pollution during the manufacture of electronic products'.

The report, a study of water samples taken from industrial estates in the Philippines, Thailand, China, and Mexico, shows how a wide range of hazardous chemicals used during electronics production have seeped into rivers and underground water sources. One of the major findings is that among the countries in the survey, levels of toxicity in Philippine water sources are among the highest.

“In the past few years Greenpeace has raised the alarm on how the use of hazardous chemicals and materials in electronic products has impacted on human health and the environment when the product is disposed of or recycled. This new report reveals that contamination arising even during the manufacture of electronics is an issue of great concern,” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia toxics campaigner Beau Baconguis. “The results exposed by this report are worrying especially because we Filipinos rely heavily on groundwater for drinking.”

Analysis of groundwater samples taken within and around Gateway Business Park in General Trias, ON Semiconductor in Carmona and Cavite Export Processing Zone (CEPZA) in Rosario (all in Cavite Province), showed varying degrees of contamination from different hazardous chemicals, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. VOCs are known to affect the kidneys, the central nervous system and the liver, and are potentially carcinogenic. All sites notably contained chlorinated VOCs, toxic solvents or degreasers used in “cleaning” semiconductors and other electrical equipment.

CEPZA, in particular, had unusually high levels of contaminants. Three samples from this site contained chlorinated VOCs above World Health Organization (WHO) limits for drinking water. One sample contained tetrachloroethene at nine times above the WHO guidance values for exposure limits, and 70 times the US Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level for drinking water. Elevated levels of metals, particularly copper, nickel and zinc, were also found in groundwater samples in some sites(1).

According to the World Bank, 50% of the of the Philippine population rely on ground water for drinking. Groundwater is also the source of 86% of piped water in the country.

“The findings at this stage make it clear that only when we factor in the complete life cycle of electronic products will their full environmental costs emerge. Major electronic manufacturers must get their suppliers to eliminate toxic chemicals from their production systems so that communities will not have to suffer from consequences of unknowingly consuming contaminated water,” said Baconguis.

The electronics industry is truly global with individual components manufactured at specialized facilities around the world often involving highly resource and chemical intensive processes, generating hazardous, wastes, the fate and effects of which are still very poorly documented.

“The pollution must stop. Electronics manufacturing remains at the cutting edge of technological development and has a strong economic future. There is no reason why it should not also be at the cutting edge when it comes to clean designs and technologies, substitution of hazardous chemicals, greater worker health protection and the prevention of environmental pollution at source,” she added.

(1)Copper and Nickel are widely used in the Printed Wiring Board manufacture of electronics. Effects from copper to aquatic life can occur at very low levels including reduction in growth and fertility rate. Ingestion of some nickel compounds can cause toxic effects in humans and animals.


Tell the Bush Administration to protect polar bears
 and their critical habitat

Polar bears are completely dependent on Arctic sea ice to survive, but 80 percent of that ice could be gone in 20 years and all of it by 2040. Polar bears are already suffering the effects: birth rates are falling, fewer cubs are surviving, and more bears are drowning. The Bush Administration's proposal to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act is a crucial first step toward ensuring a future for these magnificent Arctic creatures. Yet the administration's proposal does not designate "critical habitat" for protection, even though melting habitat from global warming is the main threat to the polar bear's survival.

Submit your Official Citizen Comment urging the Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize the listing of the polar bear and designate its critical habitat.



July 20 21 22 2007

Bark Sees Results in


"Roads Campaign"

phone: 503-331-0374

Last week, Bark, a watchdog group focused on protecting Mt. Hood forests, received the Proposed Action notice from the Forest Service for upcoming restoration work in the Clackamas District of Mt. Hood National Forest. As a result of Bark's efforts and preliminary recommendations, the Forest Service has announced that they will take action on over a hundred miles of roads. Now is the time to get involved!

Last week, Bark, a watchdog group focused on protecting Mt. Hood forests, received the Proposed Action notice from the Forest Service for upcoming restoration work in the Clackamas District of Mt. Hood National Forest. As a result of Bark's efforts and preliminary recommendations, the Forest Service has announced that they will take action on over a hundred miles of roads. Bark is in the midst of a campaign to change the future of roads in our national forest and much of the focus has been an effort to complete the first citizen inventory of 10% of the 4,000 miles roads around Mt. Hood. This crumbling road system is rapidly becoming the biggest threat to our drinking water supply and forests. Last week's announcement is the first step in a larger vision for the future of Mt. Hood where roads lead to campgrounds, not clearcuts.

Bark will be continuing to survey the roads of Mt. Hood, including a four-day campout this weekend and is looking for more help. Trainings will occur each day and volunteers will be given all tools necessary to take part in this exciting data collection effort. In May, Bark hosted the first Roadtruthing Campout along the scenic Clackamas River. Over 40 people attended and became a part of the campaign.

Join Bark on the eastside of Mt. Hood at the Sherwood Campground off Road 35 for another family-friendly campout, Thursday, July 19th - Monday, July 23rd to continue this important effort towards a goal of covering 10% of the roads by the end of the summer. Each day, Bark will conduct a training on how to survey the roads in our national forest and then team up to walk, bike or drive a selected segment of roads and collect on-site data for future action!

Each morning, Bark will host a training explaining the issues around roads and what to be looking for as you travel the assigned roads each day. Standard survey forms will be handed out to be filled out on each road, capturing your observations. The different parts of this survey form will also be explained. The roadtruthing component of the day will be about 4 hours, with a lunch stop. At the end of the day, your data will be collected and included in with the rest of our roadtruthing data and eventually become a part of a forestwide analysis.

In the evenings supper will be served around the campfire. Please bring lunches, good footwear for walking and camping gear. Bark will provide some tents and shelter available. Carpools will leave from the Daily Grind at 6pm Thursday, Friday and Saturday evening. If you have room in your car or can pick up food donations from this location, stop by on your way out to the forest!

In the coming months, the Forest Service will be revising their Travel Plan. This document guides the agency in their decision-making when it comes to building, maintaining and obliterating roads in Mt. Hood. Many of these roads have been unmaintained and abused by all-terrain vehicles. With each storm a road becomes more and more likely to fall into a crossing stream. After decades of logging and mismanagement, there are over 4,000 miles of roads in Mt. Hood National Forest alone!

Bark has a long history of defending the national forest with site-specific, scientifically backed monitoring data from Forest Service projects. This campaign intends to respond to their Travel Plan revisions with the same rigor and passion. Join Bark's team of groundtruthers come out of the forest and onto the road in an effort to complete the first citizen-led inventory of this crumbling road system.

For many years, Bark has been successful in stopping destructive logging projects by having an on-the-ground knowledge of each proposed action, calling the monitoring work groundtruthing. Their data collection for the roads in Mt. Hood is not so different and has thus, warranted only a slight tweak of lingo; roadtruthing.

For more information, check out the Bark website at

 Campout information is in the Events section.

Posted here on July 18 2007 by joe



The Japanese Government whaling fleet is finally leaving the Southern Ocean, according to its expedition leader.
The whaling factory vessel, Nisshin Maru, disabled for nine days by fire, is moving under her own power.
This must be the last time the fleet threatens both the whales and the pristine Antarctic environment.
Take Action 
Tell President Bush to lead the way in defending the whales.

Interesting Article on
Peak Oil
and Energy

Greg's Note: Last week, our Peak Oil correspondent Byron King traveled to Boston, where he attended the annual meeting of the U.S. Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO-USA).
A quick rundown of Harvard geology professor and former MacArthur Fellowship recipient Dan Schrag 's proposed policy solutions include, over the long haul, replacing the use of carbon-based fossil fuel with carbon-neutral, if not carbon-free, energy sources.
First, policymakers across the world must focus on driving economic activity toward exceedingly high efficiencies in energy usage, and simply burning less carbon. This will require a massive effort to educate people about the magnitude of the GW problem, if that is even possible in this great, big, collectively dumb world of ours.
Energy production will have to trend rapidly toward renewable energy, with nuclear power included in the mix. And Schrag has some interesting thoughts on what is called "carbon sequestration," meaning capturing CO2 at the exhaust stack and returning it to deep underground storage, or subsea storage under geological conditions that would keep the substance out of the atmosphere for many millions of years. 

captian kill more
click on picture - for short video

Captian Killmore


* VIDEO * 


Help Bark

Stop The No Whiskey Timber Sale.

copied from portland indy media

The Forest Service is accepting your comments on the enormous (nearly 3 square miles) No Whisky Timber Sale until March 17.
No Whisky logging project lies along the banks of the North Fork of the Clackamas River about 10 miles Southeast of the City of Estacada. Covering nearly 1,700 acres (almost 3 square miles!), the No Whisky proposal adds insult to an already injured forest ecosystem.

Included in this post is a 4 1/2 minute video from Bark about the importance of stopping this sale.

56K Modem Stream

The Forest Service is accepting your comments on the enormous

(nearly 3 square miles) No Whisky Timber Sale until March 17.
No Whisky logging project lies along the banks of the North Fork of the Clackamas River about 10 miles Southeast of the City of Estacada. Covering nearly 1,700 acres (almost 3 square miles!), the No Whisky proposal adds insult to an already injured forest ecosystem. The forests of No Whisky were clearcut in the early 1920s and in 1929 the railroad used to haul the trees started a fire, burning all but 40 acres of the current logging proposal. To make matters worse, the burned forest was logged again shortly after the fire, destroying any chance of a healthy recovery.
In addition, these past logging operations opened the area up to illegal off-road vehicle use that has caused significant erosion, pollution, garbage, noise that disturbs wildlife, and unnatural alterations to area streams. Any new logging projects in this area will not help the area recover as the Forest Service suggests, it will only make matters worse in an area that is finally recovering from past abuse.

*1. Write a letter today asking the Forest Service to drop the No Whisky Timber Sale. Simply add your personal comments to the sample letter below and mail or e-mail it to:

Jim Roden
Clackamas Ranger Station
595 NW Industrial Way
Estacada, OR 97023


* Letters must be postmarked no later than Friday, March 17, 2006.

click --> - for sample letter from Indy Media post



The Federal Government is trying
To Sell 800,000 acres of wilderness
2-22-06 --> Send your congressman an  email saying
"NO to the SELL OFF"

Is technology going to save us from
Global Warming ?
Read about how the United States and Australia,
which are the two biggest countries that
are not participating in the
Intend to beat global warming by using technology

Michael Mullet Video
On The 
Environmental  And Energy Policy

Should those who damage or use
 vandalism or fire to destroy Property.
Be called a TERRORIST?
Can the Patriot Act be used to strip Rights
And with no Deaths Involved ....
Hold People For Life in Prison
Watch this short film on ECO TERRORISM

The Menhaden Fish have declined to the point that the
whole eco system will pay the price
You say "What in the heck our Menhaden?"
Im glad you asked do you care?
Please, go to my poolside page to get the latest 2/2006 update on this tradgy and beleive me it is an "Impacting Tradgy" that will affect us all.

menhaden fish extinct


Summer 2006
Biscuit Logging Begins    
Forest Service announcing:
 two new logging sales

Buscuit Burn Logging
~ Indy Media ~

eagle creek
save eagle creek

more on this photo here



Whale Killing and

Take Action !

Bookmark and Share

Contact Joe Anybody here: