Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I usually don't write PETA-esque posts, but a couple of pictures from the Faroe Islands really startled me..Apparently they have a local custom there, a transition to manhood of a sort. Basically what they do is they round up a bunch of dolphins with boats, make them flee into small bays, and then hundreds of local residents with ropes and hooks charge into the water and slaughter them. Wtf is wrong with the Faroe Islands people???
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Maybe wrong to you but if it's their culture, who are you to judge?
For a long time in some cultures it was normal to deprive women of their sexuality, so to speak. I.e. removing certain things in rituals.
Its primitive, its inhumane, and its cruel. Thats what both of those cases have in common. And its complete bull.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I've never supported cultural or moral relativism to justify any kind of slaughter. If something is completely unnecessary and harms people or ecosystem, I'll always be against it, whether it comes from my culture or anyone elses.
good answer and i agree 100%
Q5echo
quote:
Look to patterns to grasp glacier growth By DENNIS T. AVERY
for the Journal Star
Posted Dec 14, 2008 @ 12:01 AM
Alaska's glaciers grew this year after shrinking for most of the last 200 years. The reason? Global temperatures dropped over the past 18 months.
The global mean annual temperature has been declining recently because the solar wind thrown out by the sun has retreated to its smallest extent in at least 50 years. This temperature downturn was not predicted by the global computer models, but had been predicted by the sunspot index since 2000.
The solar wind normally protects the Earth from 90 percent of the high-energy cosmic rays that flash constantly through the universe. Henrik Svensmark at the Danish Space Research Institute has demonstrated that when more cosmic rays hit the Earth, they create more of the low, wet clouds that deflect heat back into outer space. Thus the Earth's recent cooling.
Unusually large amounts of Alaskan snow last winter were followed by unusually chilly temperatures this summer. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years," says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey. "It's been a long time on most glaciers (since) they've actually had positive mass balance (added thickness)."
Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10,000-12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depth of the Little Ice Age. That's enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut.
Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven't looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. During the Little Ice Age - 1400 to 1850 - Muir Glacier filled the whole of Glacier Bay. Since then, the glacier has retreated 57 miles. But the Little Ice Age was preceded by the Medieval-era warming, the cold Dark Ages, a Roman-era warming and a whole series of moderate warmings and coolings that extend back at least 1 million years, based on the evidence of the microfossils in the world's seabed sediments.
The real question is whether today's warming is different than the previous Dansgaard-Osechger warming cycles. I think that the difference, if any, is slight. Most of our modern-era's warming occurred before 1940, and virtually all of our human-emitted CO2 came after that date. The temperatures in 1998 - the recent peak - were only 0.2 degree Celsius higher than in 1940. After the temperature drop of the past 18 months, the temperatures are now cooler than in 1940.
The 1,500-year cycles usually start with a sudden shift of 1-2 degrees - in temperate zones - and double that in Alaska. Then temperatures erratically rise and fall with the sun's total irradiance changes, often in 11-year cycles. At the end of the warming comes another Little Ice Age or, every 100,000 years, a Big Ice Age that will drop average temperatures about 15 degrees Celsius. That's when insulation will truly become the most important invention in history.
The sunspots are now predicting a 30-year cooling of the Earth. That would thicken the Alaskan glaciers somewhat, but probably wouldn't refill Glacier Bay with ice. That'll have to wait for the next large-scale ice age.
The sunspot index has a 59 percent correlation with our temperatures (in a roughly 10-year lag). CO2 has only an "accidental" 22 percent correlation with our temperatures, which is grounds for dismissing CO2 as a major climate player.
All this is radically different from the 5 degrees Celsius warming predicted by the computer models. However, the scientific rule says that if actual observations tell you something that's the opposite of your theory, change your theory.
DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. He is co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years."
We should definitely increase our emissions if we want to help the planet.
pkcRAISTLIN
global temperatures over the last 18 months sure are more important than the same measurement over the last century.
otec
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
We should definitely increase our emissions if we want to help the planet.
Oh no!!! wait, let's all use crop oil fuel, so another million of African children get starved to death.
LazFX
2012 is coming.......
:nervous:
Magnetonium
Here's a very important document I would like to share with everyone. I have the original PDF file, if anyone wants it - with diagrams and easy-to-read descriptions, let me know - I'll be more than happy to upload it.
This is a document that was circulated at my work some time ago.
The "Six Sins of Greenwashing" TM
A Study of Environmental Claims in North American Consumer Markets
A ‘Green Paper’ by
TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc.
quote:
Green•wash (grēn'wŏsh', -wôsh') – verb: the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.
Overview
The recent surge of environmental awareness in North America is unmistakable. It has been documented by many researchers and widely reported in the popular press. The rise in “green” marketing claims has also been well documented. Less studied is the apparent increase in “greenwashing” – false or misleading green marketing claims.
In an effort to describe, understand, and quantify the growth of greenwashing, TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc. conducted a survey of six category-leading big box stores. Through these surveys, we identified 1,018 consumer products bearing 1,753 environmental claims. Of the 1,018 products examined, all but one made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences.
Based on the survey results, we identified six patterns in the greenwashing, which we now recognize as the “Six Sins of GreenwashingTM”.
Of the 1,018 products reviewed, all but one committed at least one of the Six Sins of Greenwashing.
These findings suggest that greenwashing is pervasive, the consequences of which are significant:
• Well-intentioned consumers may be misled into purchases that do not deliver on their environmental promise. This means both that the individual consumer has been misled and that the potential environmental benefit of his or her purchase has been squandered.
• Competitive pressure from illegitimate environmental claims takes market share away from products that offer more legitimate benefits, thus slowing the penetration of real environmental innovation in the marketplace.
• Greenwashing may create cynicism and doubt about all environmental claims. Consumers – particularly those who care most about real environmental progress – may give up on marketers and manufacturers, and give up on the hope that their spending might be put to good use. This would eliminate a significant market-based, financial incentive for green product innovation and leave committed environmental advocates with government regulations as the most likely alternative.
The “Six Sins of GreenwashingTM”
1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off
2. Sin of No Proof
3. Sin of Vagueness
4. Sin of Irrelevance
5. Sin of Fibbing
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
Research Methodology
In the spring of 2007, TerraChoice sent research teams into six category-leading big box stores with instructions to record every product-based environmental claim they observed. We instructed the teams that, for each environmental claim, they should identify the product, the nature of the claim, any supporting information, and any references offered for further information.
After recording 1,753 environmental claims on 1,018 products (refer to Appendix A), we tested the claims against current best practices in environmental marketing. The sources for these best practices include the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)1, the U.S Federal Trade Commission2, U.S Environmental Protection Agency3, Consumers Union4, and the Canadian Consumer Affairs Branch5.
Finally, we studied the resulting list of false or misleading claims for patterns and lessons. We have come to call these patterns the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”. Of the 1,018 products that made environmental claims, all but one committed at least one of the Six Sins.
Defining and Quantifying the Six Sins of Greenwashing
Based on our analysis, we categorized the false or misleading environmental claims into the following “Six Sins of Greenwashing”:
Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off – The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off is committed by suggesting a product is “green” based on a single environmental attribute (the recycled content of paper, for example) or an unreasonably narrow set of attributes (recycled content and chlorine free bleaching) without attention to other important, or perhaps more important, environmental issues (such as energy, global warming, water, and forestry impacts of paper). Such claims are not usually false, but are used to paint a “greener” picture of the product than a more complete environmental analysis would support.
Here are some examples from the research:
Examples:
♦ Paper (including household tissue, paper towel, and copy paper) and lumber products (such as framing products and plywood) that promote their recycled content or sustainable harvesting practices without attention to manufacturing impacts such as air emissions, water emissions, and global warming impacts.
♦ Household insulation products (such as batt insulation products for home renovation products) that claim indoor air quality benefits without attention to other environmental aspects such as recycled content and manufacturing impacts.
Office technology (printers, copiers, fax machines) that promote energy efficiency without attention to hazardous material content, indoor air quality, or compatibility with recycled paper or remanufactured toner cartridges.
♦ Other product claims that committed this sin include ink cartridges, laundry detergents, dish detergent, air fresheners, bathroom cleaners, markers, flooring laminate, bags, multi-purpose cleaners, wood panels, and pesticides.
The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off was the most frequently committed sin in the study, made by 57% of all environmental claims.
Sin of No Proof – Any environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible supporting information, or by a reliable third-party certification, commits the Sin of No Proof. (For this research, we determined there to be ‘no proof’ if supporting evidence was not accessible at either the point of purchase or at the product website.)
Among others, our research found these examples of the Sin of No Proof:
♦ Household lamps and lights that promote their energy efficiency without any supporting evidence or certification.
♦ Personal care products (such as shampoos and conditioners) that claim not to have been tested on animals, but offer no evidence or certification of this claim.
♦ Facial tissues and paper towels that claim post-consumer recycled content without providing evidence.
We found a total of 454 products and approximately 26% of the environmental claims committed the Sin of No Proof; making it the second most frequently committed sin.
Sin of Vagueness – The Sin of Vagueness is committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the intended consumer.
This mobius loop is intended to mean that the product is made from recycled material. But is it the whole product, or the package? And is it made of 100% recycled material, or less? And is it post-consumer waste, or post-industrial waste? Without a qualifying statement, the symbol is likely to mislead the buyer, committing the Sin of Vagueness.
There are some recurring themes within these vague claims. For example:
♦ “Chemical-free”. In fact, nothing is free of chemicals. Water is a chemical. All plants, animals, and humans are made of chemicals as are all of our products.
♦ “Non-toxic”. Everything is toxic in sufficient dosage. Water, oxygen, and salt are all potentially hazardous.
♦ “All Natural”. Arsenic is natural. So are uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde. All are poisonous.
♦ “Green”, “Environmentally friendly”, and “Eco-conscious” (to name just a few) which are utterly meaningless without elaboration.
Some product examples from the research:
♦ Garden insecticides promoted as “chemical-free”.
♦ “Natural” hair mousse.
♦ Kitchen (wax) paper that claims “recycled content” but does not quantify it (Would 0.1% qualify?)
General purpose household cleaners that claim to be “non-toxic” without explanation or third-party substantiation.
• “100% natural” bathroom cleaners.
In our research sample, 196 individual products (or 11% of the environmental claims) committed the Sin of Vagueness.
Sin of Irrelevance – The Sin of Irrelevance is committed by making an environmental claim that may be truthful but is unimportant and unhelpful for consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. It is irrelevant and therefore distracts the consumer from finding a truly greener option.
The most frequent example of an irrelevant claim relates to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – a principal contributor to ozone depletion. Since CFCs have been legally banned for almost 30 years, there are no products that are manufactured with it. Nevertheless, we found many individual products that presented CFC-free claims as an apparently unique environmental advantage. They included:
♦ CFC-free insecticides,
♦ CFC-free lubricants,
♦ CFC-free oven cleaners,
♦ CFC-free shaving gels,
♦ CFC-free window cleaners,
♦ CFC-free disinfectants.
The Sin of Irrelevance accounted for 78 products and 4% of the environmental claims.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – These are “green” claims that may be true within the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater environmental impacts of the category as a whole. Examples include:
♦ Organic cigarettes.
♦ “Green” insecticides and herbicides.
Obviously, there are some circumstances and consumers that demand these products. Commercial insecticides and herbicides are essential to some agricultural applications. In those circumstances, choosing the greenest option is essential. However, insecticides and pesticides may be unnecessary for many cosmetic applications (such as lawns). Organic tobacco may be a more responsible choice for smokers, but shouldn’t most consumers be discouraged from smoking in the first place?
We consider a claim to commit the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils when environmental qualifiers such as “organic” or “green” are placed on products in which the entire product category is of questionable environmental value.
In this study, 17 products and approximately 1% of environmental claims committed the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils.
Sin of Fibbing – The Sin of Fibbing is committed by making environmental claims that are simply false.
In our findings, only a few products were found to commit the Sin of Fibbing. Most of these were misuse or misrepresentation of certification by an independent authority. These cases included, for example:
♦ Several shampoos that claimed to be “certified organic”, but for which our research could find no such certification.
♦ A caulking product that claims to be “Energy Star” registered, but the official Energy Star website suggests this is false.
♦ A dishwasher detergent that purports to be packaged in “100% recycled paper”, and yet the container is plastic.
CFCs have been legally banned for almost 30 years, yet many products still claim CFC-free as if it is a unique competitive advantage.
10 products (less than 1% of environmental claims) committed the Sin of Fibbing, making it one of the two least frequently committed sins.
Recommendations for Consumers
Governments and standard-setting bodies have attempted to discourage greenwashing. In North America, both the US Federal Trade Commission6 and the Canadian Consumer Affairs office7 have issued guidelines for proper use of environmental claims. Under ISO 14024, the International Organization for Standardization establishes guidelines for proper use of environmental information.
Multi-Attribute Versus Single-Attribute Claims When seeking environmentally preferable products, it is important to look at multiple environmental considerations rather than just single environmental issues. As an analogy, when attempting to identify healthier food choices, it can be useful to look at calorie content. It is more helpful, however, to also examine fat, sugar, and vitamin content. The most respected environmental claims incorporate multiple environmental considerations throughout every phase of a product’s life-cycle, which includes the environmental impacts of the raw materials, manufacturing process, the product itself, and its ultimate disposal. Single-attribute claims look at only a single environmental issue such as recycled-content or energy-efficiency. While important, single attribute claims can hide important additional environmental considerations.
If the good intentions of consumers and the environmental benefits of their choices are not to be squandered, consumers themselves will have to play a role. Here are some suggestions that arise from this study.
1. Look for Eco-labels.
Eco-labelling – standardized by ISO 14024 and recognized around the world – arose as an answer to earlier efforts of greenwashing. They remain one of the most useful tools to avoid greenwashing. Look for products that have been certified by a qualified and independent third-party such as EcoLogoCM or Green Seal. Both EcoLogoCM and Green Seal develop standards for environmental leadership in an open, transparent consensus-based process that considers multiple environmental issues throughout a product’s lifecycle (from resource extraction to end-of-life). These programs deliver a shortcut to “greener” products through:
• Clear public standards for environmental leadership in each product category;
• Third-party verification that each certified product meets the applicable standards;
• Ongoing surveillance auditing to ensure continued compliance;
• Public listings of certified products.
Additional information on other environmental standards is included in Appendix B.
2. Look For Evidence of Any of the “Six Sins” By Asking the Following Questions:
a) Is the “green” claim restricted to just one, or a narrow set of environmental issue(s)? (The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off.) If so, you might look for other information that gives a more complete picture of the environmental impact of the product. “Okay, this product comes from a sustainably harvested forest, but what are the impacts of its milling and transportation? Is the manufacturer also trying to reduce those impacts?” Emphasizing one environmental issue isn’t a problem (indeed, it often makes for better communications). Hiding a trade-off between environmental issues is a problem.
b) Does the claim help me find more information and evidence? (The Sin of No Proof.) It may not be reasonable to expect a product label or a point-of-purchase brochure to provide detailed scientific explanations of a green claim. It is reasonable to expect a product label or brochure to direct you to where you can find further evidence. Good green marketing helps the consumer find the evidence and learn more. Company websites, third-party certifiers, and toll-free phone numbers are easy and effective means of delivering proof.
c) Is the environmental and scientific meaning of the claim specific and self-evident? If not, is the specific meaning given? (The Sin of Vagueness.) Products with names like “eco-gadget” and “natur-widget” aren’t necessarily making false or misleading claims, but they should cause you to be suspicious. If the marketing claim doesn’t explain itself (“here’s what we mean by ‘eco’ …”), the claim is vague and meaningless. Similarly, watch for other popular vague green terms: “non-toxic”, “all-natural”, “environmentally-friendly”, and “earth-friendly.” Without adequate explanation, such claims are so vague as to be meaningless.
d) Could all of the other products in this category make the same claim? (The Sin of Irrelevance.) The most common example is easy to detect: “CFC-free” is a meaningless claim. It is irrelevant because no products are manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons. Other cases may be harder to detect. Ask yourself if the claim is important and relevant to the product. (If a light bulb claimed water efficiency benefits you should be suspicious.) Comparison-shop (and ask the competitive vendors). If the claim seems illogical and disconnected from the product, it may very well be irrelevant.
e) When I check up on it, is the claim true? (The Sin of Fibbing.) This sin can be difficult to detect. The most frequent examples in this study were false uses of third-party certifications. Thankfully, these are easy to confirm. Legitimate third-party certifiers – EcoLogoCM, Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Guard, Green Seal (for example) – all maintain publicly available lists of certified products. Some even maintain fraud advisories for products that are falsely claiming certification.
f) Is the claim trying to make consumers feel “green” about a product category that is of questionable environmental benefit? (The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils.) Consumers concerned about the adverse effects of tobacco and cigarettes would be better served by quitting smoking than by buying organic cigarettes. Similarly, consumers concerned about the human health and environmental risks of excessive use of lawn chemicals might create a bigger environmental benefit by reducing their use than by looking for greener alternatives.
Recommendations for Marketers
Green marketing is a vast commercial opportunity, and should be. When it works – when it is scientifically sound and commercially successful – it is an important accelerator toward environmental sustainability. The purpose of this study is not to discourage green marketing, nor to indict particular marketers. Our purpose is to help marketers improve their claims so that:
• Genuinely “greener” products excel;
• Competitive pressure from illegitimate green claims is diminished;
• Consumers do not become jaded and unduly skeptical of green claims; and,
• Marketers employ environmental concerns to establish honest, trustworthy, and long-lasting dialogue with their customers.
Green marketers and consumers are learning about the pitfalls of greenwashing together. This is a shared problem and opportunity.
The Six Sins of Greenwashing does NOT suggest that only perfectly “green” products should be marketed as environmentally preferable. First of all, there is no such thing as a perfectly “green” product. Environmentally preferable products are “greener” not “green”, and marketing them as such is entirely fair. Second, environmental progress is necessarily stepwise. Not only should incrementally “greener” innovations and products be encouraged, consumers should and will reward stepwise progress.
Avoiding greenwashing does not require waiting for a perfect product. It does mean that sound science, honesty, and transparency are paramount.
The Six Sins suggest a number of specific guidelines for marketers, outlined below.
1) Avoiding the Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off
a) Do understand all of the environmental impacts of your product across its entire lifecycle.
b) Do emphasize specific messages (particularly when you know your audiences care about those issues) but don’t use single issues to distract from other impacts.
c) Do pursue continual improvement of your environmental footprint (across the entire lifecycle), and encourage your customers to join you on that journey.
d) Do draw on multi-attribute eco-labeling standard and certification programs, such as EcoLogoCM and Green Seal for legitimacy of environmental claims.
e) Don’t make claims about a single environmental impact or benefit, without knowing how your product performs in terms of its other impacts, and without sharing that information with your customers.
2) Avoiding the Sin of No Proof
a) Do understand and confirm the scientific case behind each green marketing claim.
a) Do use language that resonates with your customer, as long as that language is truthful. b) Do use caution in your use of the recycling/recyclable symbol (the mobius loop). Its use is so widespread and confused that it has become largely meaningless.
c) Don’t use vague names and terms (such as environmentally-friendly) without providing precise explanations of your meaning.
d) Don’t use the terms “chemical-free” and “all-natural”.
Green marketers and consumers are learning about the pitfalls of greenwashing together. This is a shared problem and opportunity.
4) Avoiding the Sin of Irrelevance
a) Don’t claim CFC-free, because it is not a legitimate point of competitive differentiation.
b) Don’t claim any environmental benefit that is shared by all or most of your competitors.
5) Avoiding the Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils
a) Do help each customer find the product that is right for them, based on their needs and wants.
b) Don’t try to make a customer feel “green” about a choice that is basically harmful or unnecessary.
6) Avoiding the Sin of Fibbing
a) Do tell the truth. Always.
b) Always tell the truth.
Concluding Thoughts Green marketing is a powerful convergence between green buyers and sellers . More and more consumers expect to use their spending as an expression of their environmental commitment. More and more businesses are establishing environmental performance as a point of competitive distinction and social responsibility. When genuine environmental leadership is rewarded in the marketplace (with market share, price premiums, public respect, and increased visibility), it motivates all products to improve. It uses competition and free enterprise to pull the economy toward sustainability.
With that in mind, the purpose of this study is not to discourage green marketing, nor to indict particular marketers. It is not intended to scare consumers away from green claims. Our purpose is to assist marketers and consumers to build a more honest and effective dialogue about the environmental impacts of products.
Although our findings - the Six Sins of Greenwashing – may seem bleak, green marketers and consumers are learning about the pitfalls of greenwashing together. This is a shared problem and opportunity. When green marketing overcomes these challenges, consumers will be better able to trust green claims and genuinely environmentally preferable products will penetrate their markets more rapidly and deeply. This will be great for consumers, great for business, and great for the planet.
We expect to repeat this research annually, and look forward to these positive developments.
APPENDIX B –- Eco-labels
Consumers can avoid greenwashing by seeking products that are certified to meet legitimate environmental standards such as EcoLogoCM or Green Seal. There are, however, a growing number of additional environmental standards and claims being made.
When comparing environmental standards, consumers would be wise to ask the following questions:
(1) What type of environmental claim is being made?
Is the manufacturer making a claim about a single environmental attribute such as energy efficiency or recycled-content or is the manufacturer making a broader multi-attribute claim that the product meets an environmental leadership standard? While incredibly valuable, single-attribute environmental claims do not address other potentially important human health and environmental issues.
Environmental leadership standards such as EcoLogoCM and Green Seal examine all of the relevant environmental impacts of a product category along with the products currently available in the market when developing a standard. Leadership standards generally are designed so that only the top 20 percent of products in a category can meet it. This allows sufficient competition within the leadership category to help keep prices competitive while still being protective of human health and the environment.
(2) Is a copy of the environmental standard or testing protocol available for review?
If a manufacturer can not or refuses to provide a copy of the environmental standard or testing protocol, one might suspect that the claim is only a marketing ploy. When they do provide a copy of the standard, review it carefully to determine if it references appropriate national or international environmental and performance standards.
Standard and testing protocols should have a clear and consistent meaning. They should be meaningful and verifiable. Good standards and protocols are designed so that anyone unaffiliated with the standard should be able to read it, interpret it, and know how to evaluate products against it. They should also be designed to ensure consistent evaluation results, meaning that different reviewers would likely reach the same conclusion about whether a product meets the standard or not.
In addition, multi-attribute environmental leadership standards should be based on human health and environmental considerations throughout the lifecycle of the product from raw material extraction, manufacture, use, and ultimate disposal of the product. The lifecycle stages considered and covered by the standard should be explicitly stated.
(3) How was the environmental standard or testing protocol developed?
It is preferable that standards and testing protocols be developed in an open, public, transparent process similar to the way ANSI, ASTM, ISO 14024 or other public standards are developed. The standard setting organization should make records of the standard development process available for review.
(4) Who developed the environmental standard or testing protocol?
The most trusted standards are those developed in a consensus-based process by broad stakeholder groups. Standards developed consistently with ISO 14024 protocols will make a list of stakeholder groups available upon request. Consumers should be less trustful of standards developed by an individual manufacturer or trade association because of potentially unmitigated conflicts of interest.
(5) What process is used to verify that products actually meet the standard or passed the testing requirements?
There are a variety of procedures to verify that a product meets a standard. Some are more rigorous (and can be more expensive for the manufacturer), but provide a greater degree of assurance. The standard verification procedures range (from most rigorous to least rigorous) as follows:
• Independent third-party certification with on-site audits – An independent organization verifies the products meet the standards based on a review of the product, additional information provided by the manufacturer, and after an onsite visit to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the manufacturer.
• Independent third-party certification – An independent organization verifies the products meet the standard based on a review of the product and additional information provided by the manufacturer.
• Self registration with random audits – Individual companies identify products meeting the environmental standard on their own without any preliminary review, but the standard setting organization or other independent auditors conduct random audits after products are registered to ensure compliance.
• Self registration – Individual companies identify products meeting the environmental standard on their own without any outside review.
It is important to note that a stringent verification process is relatively meaningless if the standard itself is not meaningful.
Widely Accepted Environmental Standards:
Multi-Attribute Standard Setting and Certification Organizations
These programs examine multiple environmental issues throughout the entire lifecycle of a product, which includes the environmental impacts associated with the collection of raw materials, the manufacturing process, the impacts of the product during its use, and the impacts when the product is ultimately recycled or disposed of. Before earning certification, an independent third-party auditor must verify that products actually meet the publicly-available standard.
EcoLogo <www.ecologo.org>
EcoLogoCM is North America’s oldest and most widely known environmental leadership standard. The EcoLogoCM website includes more than 120 environmental standards and almost 7,000 certified products (stock-keeping units or SKUs). Purchasers are using the site to research or develop purchasing specifications and to put together potential bidder lists. EcoLogoCM is the only program in North America to have been accredited by the Global Eco-Labelling Network. It is a Type I eco-label according to ISO, and addresses all of the environmental attributes of the product.
Chlorine Free Products Association <www.chlorinefreeproducts.org>
CFPA certifies paper and tissue products meeting its multi-attribute standard.
Green Seal <www.greenseal.org>
Green Seal standards provide leadership criteria for the development of many types of products and services. The Green Seal website includes a list of all of the Green Seal-certified products and services with links to the manufacturers and providers.
Water will become an important commodity in the future - it is becoming already, like oil is today - mark my word. Wars over water, not over oil ... sounds funny now, doesn't it?
Water levels in some of the world's most important rivers have declined significantly over the past 50 years, US researchers say.
They say the reduced flows are linked to climate change and will have a major impact as the human population grows.
The only area with a significant increase in water flows was the Arctic due to a greater snow and ice melting.
The study was published in the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Journal of Climate.
Rainfall patterns 'altered'
From the Yellow river in northern China to the Ganges in India to the Colorado river in the United States - the US scientists say that the major sources of fresh water for much of the world's population are in decline.
The researchers analysed water flows in more than 900 rivers over a 50-year period to 2004.
They found that there was an overall decline in the amount of water flowing into the world's oceans.
Much of the reduction has been caused by human activities such as the building of dams and the diversion of water for agriculture.
But the researchers highlighted the contribution of climate change, saying that rising temperatures were altering rainfall patterns and increasing rates of evaporation.
The authors say they are concerned that the decline in freshwater sources will continue with serious repercussions for a growing global population.
While some major rivers, including the Brahmaputra in South Asia and the Yangtze in China, have larger water flows, there is concern that the increased volume comes from the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas.
This means that in future these rivers might decline significantly as the glaciers disappear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7790711.stm
The pending scramble for water
quote:
In 2008, Saudi Arabia ceased to be self sufficient in wheat production.
It is looking to access land overseas to grow crops, possibly in Pakistan or the Horn of Africa.
China is acquiring agricultural land in Southern Africa for similar purposes.
And Daewoo Logistic is looking to lease land in Madagascar, to grow food for South Korea.
Other countries in South Asia and the Gulf are considering similar moves.
Scale of problem
None of these countries needs the land for the sake of territorial expansion.
What they need the land for is more fundamental: food. In all these cases, it is a shortage of water that has prompted this move.
The experience of Saudi Arabia, China and South Korea today could be a foretaste of what will follow elsewhere.
It stems from the failure of national governments and the international trade system to address the looming water crisis. Without changes, we face a scramble for water over the next two decades.
When water availability drops below 1500 cubic meters per person per year, a country needs to start importing food, particularly water intense crops.
Saudi Arabia faces this problem. Twenty other countries fell below this threshold in 2000, and another 14 will join them by 2030.
Industrialisation
It is not just about absolute water scarcity, however.
For many of the fast growing economies in Asia and the Middle East, there are trade offs.
As economies expand, governments have to choose whether to allocate water to agriculture, or to expanding cities and industries instead.
This is a challenge that China and South Korea face.
Chinese factory workers
Industrialisation means countries are looking elsewhere for water-rich land
When a country devotes 40% of its renewable water resources or more to irrigation, it starts to face these water allocation issues.
By 2030, under business as usual, all of South Asia will reach the 40% threshold; the Middle East and North Africa region will have hit 58%.
Agriculture almost always loses out to the industrialising economy, especially to the energy and manufacturing sectors, in such water allocation decisions.
Current trends suggest that by 2030, demand for extra water will soar.
Rapidly industrialising economies across South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, which support approximately 2.5 billion people, will be forced to look elsewhere for water-rich land for their food.
Deep problems
Why is finding the water for agriculture becoming such a profound issue?
First, we have been incredibly wasteful with our agricultural water over the years, and now face shortages of groundwater in many parts of the farming world.
Second, as we grow richer, we tend to eat more meat, which requires more water.
Third, trying to reform water use in agriculture is often deemed political suicide, so inertia prevails.
Cherry orchard in the Golan Heights
Around 70% of the world's freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture
Fourth, we have an outdated global trade system for agriculture.
While over 70% of the world's freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture, historically this water has been heavily subsidised and therefore free or hugely under-priced.
It has been used wastefully as a result.
More than a quarter of India's harvest, for example, could be at risk by 2025 as groundwater is depleted beyond recovery; already 10% depends on water mined from unsustainable groundwater sources.
Water scarcity may soon cause a loss of global crop production of 350 million tonnes, almost equal to all the grain the US grows.
Different diets
Food demand is projected to grow by 70-90% by 2050. But more than 25% of the increase in grain demand will be due to changes in diets, rather than to population growth.
A typical meat-eater's diet requires about 5,400 litres of water a day to produce, double what a vegetarian requires for the same nutritional value
Dominic Waughray, WEF
A typical meat-eater's diet requires about 5,400 litres of water a day to produce, double what a vegetarian requires for the same nutritional value.
Global production of meat is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/01 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, notably across Asia.
Ironically, while more "crop-per-drop" is required to meet future grain demand, the fastest-growing nations are also diverting more and more water away from agriculture to support growing cities and industry, compounding the problem.
Volatile prices
Making agriculture more water-efficient commonly involves government intervention to re-assess historical allocations to farmers, raise water prices, and implement technological change.
Most politicians choose to avoid addressing such issues.
And there is no correlation between the places that are best suited to grow different foods and those that actually do in practice.
Three of the world's top ten food exporters are water scarce, and three of the top ten food importers are water rich.
There is less overall global trade in agriculture, when we need more. Food prices have become much more volatile, as recent price rises showed.
Bilateral alliances
Without bold water reforms in national agricultural policies or reform to the global trade system, bilateral land-for-water deals will inevitably increase.
Such deals may seem rational now, but the scale of the problem in the next two decades demands a global solution.
Under business as usual, by 2030 we could see multiple countries from South Asia and the Middle East competing with each other to secure bilateral land-for-water deals: cash-rich, water-poor nations competing to secure deals with water-rich nations around the world.
A rapid retreat from a globalised, 21st Century world, back into a 19th Century style network of bilateral alliances and trade deals, with all of the associated political and economic complications, is likely.
The scramble for water has begun, and governments must react; the implications of doing nothing are too profound to contemplate.
f you look at the numbers, it is hard to see how many East African communities made it through the long drought of 2005 and 2006.
Among people who study human development, it is a widely-held view that each person needs about 20 litres of water each day for the basics - to drink, cook and wash sufficiently to avoid disease transmission.
Yet at the height of the East African drought, people were getting by on less than five litres a day - in some cases, less than one litre a day, enough for just three glasses of drinking water and nothing left over.
The scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality
UNDP, 2006
Some people, perhaps incredibly from a western vantage point, are hardy enough to survive in these conditions; but it is not a recipe for a society that is healthy and developing enough to break out of poverty.
"Obviously there are many drivers of human development," says the UN's Andrew Hudson.
"But water is the most important."
At the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), where Dr Hudson works as principal technical advisor to the water governance programme, he calculated the contribution that various factors make to the Human Development Index, a measure of how societies are doing socially and economically.
"It was striking. I looked at access to energy, spending on health, spending on education - and by far the strongest driver of the HDI on a global scale was access to water and sanitation."
Different lives
Two key questions arise, then.
WATER TRENDS
How availability, use and needs are changing across the world
In graphics
Why do some communities have so little access to water? And how will the current picture change in a world where the human population is growing, where societies are urbanising and industrialising, and where climate change may alter the raw availability of water significantly?
The UNDP is unequivocal about the first question.
"The availability of water is a concern for some countries," says the report.
"But the scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality, not in physical availability."
Statistics on water consumption appear to back the UN's case.
Japan and Cambodia experience about the same average rainfall - about 160cm per year.
But whereas the average Japanese person can use nearly 400 litres per day, the average Cambodian must make do with about one-tenth of that.
Girl drinks from tap
The number of people with access to clean water is increasing
The picture is improving to some extent.
Across the world, 1.6bn more people have access to clean drinking water than in 1990.
But population growth and climatic changes could change the picture.
In some regions, "the scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis" could become one of physical availability, especially in places where consumption is already unsustainably high.
"There are several rivers that don't reach the sea any more," says Mark Smith, head of the water programme at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
"The Yellow River is one, the Murray-Darling (in Australia) is nearly another - they have to dredge the mouth of the river every year to make sure it doesn't dry up.
"The Aral Sea and Lake Chad have shrunk because the rivers that feed them have been largely dried out; and you can see it on a smaller scale as well, where streams that are important for small communities in Tanzania may go dry for half the year, largely because people are taking more and more water for irrigating crops."
Wet and dry
Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took an in-depth look at how the raw availability of water might alter in the future as climatic patterns change.
Its projections are derived from computer models of the Earth's hugely complex climate system, and as such are far from being firm forecasts.
A warmer climate overall means a wetter climate; warmer air can hold more moisture.
Himalayan glaciers alone store water used by more than a billion people
Scientists measure the volume of glaciers in "mm SLE" - the amount that sea levels would rise if the ice melted
But weather patterns are likely to shift, meaning that water will be deposited in different places with a different pattern in time.
"In general we see drying in the sub-tropics and mid-latitudes, from southern Europe across to Kazakhstan and from North Africa to Iran," recounts Martin Parry, who as co-chair of the IPCC's working group on climate impacts oversaw the water report's compilation.
"And the drying extends westwards into Central America. And there are equivalents in the southern hemisphere - southern Africa, Australia."
In some populated parts of North Africa and Central Asia, he says, people may struggle simply to get enough to drink.
Other areas, meanwhile, are projected to receive more rain - considerably more, in some cases.
The question then is whether societies can make use of it.
"If you look at India, Bangladesh and Burma, there are indications of an increase in water availability," says Professor Parry.
"But when you look in more detail you see that monsoonal precipitation will become more intense - there'll be a heavier downpour but over fewer days - so you might just end up with more runoff, which could actually mean less availability of water to the community."
Thirsty work
A changing climate is only one of the factors likely to affect the amount of water at each person's disposal in future.
A more populated world - and there could be another 2.5 billion people on the planet by 2050 - is likely to be a thirstier world.
Those extra people will need feeding; and as agriculture accounts for about 70% of water use around the world, extra consumption for growing food is likely to reduce the amount available for those basic needs of drinking, cooking and washing.
Industry can also take water that would otherwise have ended up in peoples' mouths.
On the other hand, as a society industrialises it tends to become less reliant on farming - which could, in principle, reduce its local demand.
It is a tremendously complex picture; and forecasting its impacts makes simple climate modelling look a trivial task by comparison.
Researchers at the University of Kassel in Germany, led by Martina Floerke, have attempted it.
Their projections suggest that some regions are likely to see drastic declines in the amount of water available for personal use - and for intriguing reasons.
"The principal cause of decreasing water stress (where it occurs) is the greater availability of water due to increased annual precipitation related to climate change," they conclude.
"The principal cause of increasing water stress is growing water withdrawals, and the most important factor for this increase is the growth of domestic water use stimulated by income growth."
The modelling suggests that by the 2050s, as many as six billion people could face water scarcity (defined as less than 1,000 cubic metres per person per year), depending, most importantly, on how societies develop - a significant increase on previous estimates.
Ideas pipeline
The irony is that the richer societies are the ones most likely to be able to adapt to these changes - perhaps relatively easily.
A century ago, a 500km-long pipeline was built to bring water from the Western Australian coast to the parched inland goldfields around Kalgoorlie; the economics of gold made it viable.
Now that the coastal capital Perth is drying out, there is talk of building an even longer pipeline to bring water from the north of the state.
The state recently acquired a desalination plant - an effective, but expensive, way of increasing the raw supply of clean water. A number of Middle Eastern countries are doing the same; it is even being contemplated near London.
Rivers can be diverted huge distances, as China is contemplating. Spain and Cyprus can take water deliveries by ship.
In any case, is adaptation possible to some of the really big projected changes, such as the rapid shrinking of Himalayan glaciers which may lose four-fifths of their area by 2030, removing what is effectively a huge natural reservoir storing water for more than a billion people?
"In principle you could do it, if you're equipped to do the engineering," says Mark Smith.
"But societies are going to have to get much better at deciding how they're going to use their water.
"And very often, in developing countries where institutions are not well established, decisions are made in a very ad-hoc way - someone says 'yes let's use this much for irrigation' but you're already using that much for a sugar mill, and before you know it you've allocated more than you actually have."
Two years ago I stood in a forest clearing in the west of the Amazon basin talking to researchers studying the deforestation and fires that are an increasing plague in the region.
They told me that some villages around there were experiencing water shortages.
How can that happen, I asked incredulously, in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, in one of the most luxuriously verdant places on Earth?
What had brought the shortages was a combination of increased human settlement, deforestation, and a drying of some streams, possibly related to climate change.
If even the Amazon can feel these pressures, it is difficult not to think that the same picture will be played out in much starker and possibly much messier colours in parts of the world that are already feeling the heat of dwindling supplies and growing needs.
yukii
Funny you bring up water becoming a commodity- that's something my dad has always said since before the GW crisis hit the media & sworn he'd make his own well one day :rolleyes:
I do find is scary how GW can ignite a small insignificant change like the dying of bees- it just turns into a domino effect- now plants die (they say approx 1/3 of our food supply [veg, etc] are at risk), then animals, and so on.
I mean not to sound corny but Albert Einstein did say if the honey bees were suddenly gone mankind would have about 4 yrs left to live :o
But also, I was thinking- flowers would be gone forever too! I mean, that's how they pollinate- insects need to mess with their pollen & then go to another flower to get more nectar- helping pollinate that flower & so on.. w/o insects to pollinate- flowers are gone :(
A good documentary on the looming water crisis (bigger that oil can ever be). Too bad it wasn't long enough to talk about the depleting aquifers, melting glaciers (source of water for billions of people), and other natural issues that threaten the environment and us.
This documentary is concerned about how greed and pollution are threatening our water resources - a growing industry. What are they going to do next: charge for breathing clean air?
EDIT:
This documentary shows why it is IMPORTANT that people should NOT buy bottled water. Yes, you can use a container/bottle and pour tap water (clean and safe). This documentary shows that bottled water is not safer, but more expensive than oil (in many instances) and a threat to the environment and society. Privatization of water is a threat to one of the most basic human needs - without water, nothing else will matter. And corporations have shown time and time again that profit is the bottom line, and are not concerned with much of anything else.
Hmmm ... large trees are best at intaking CO2 and fighting climate change ... but something's changing.
Yosemite's giant trees disappear
quote:
The oldest and largest trees within California's world famous Yosemite National Park are disappearing.
Climate change appears to be a major cause of the loss.
The revelation comes from an analysis of data collected over 60 years by forest ecologists.
They say one worrying aspect of the decline is that it is happening within one of most protected forests within the US, suggesting that even more large trees may be dying off elsewhere.
James Lutz and Jerry Franklin of the University of Washington, Seattle, US and Jan van Wagtendonk of the Yosemite Field Station of the US Geological Survey, based in El Portal, California collated data on tree growth within the park gathered from the 1930s onwards.
Their key finding is that the density of large diameter trees has fallen by 24% between the 1930s and 1990s, within all types of forest.
"These large, old trees have lived centuries and experienced many dry and wet periods," says Lutz. "So it is quite a surprise that recent conditions are such that these long-term survivors have been affected."
Tree trunk in Yosemite
The wider the diameter, the more aged the tree (J. A. Lutz).
Large trees are not only older, but they play a distinct and important role within forest ecosystems.
Their canopies help moderate the local forest environment while their understory creates a unique habitat for other plants and animals.
Older, larger trees also tend to seed the surrounding area and crucially are able to withstand fires, short term climatic changes and outbreaks of insect pests that can kill or weaken smaller trees.
But the study by Lutz's team suggests they are no longer faring well.
In a study published in Forest Ecology and Management, the researchers collated all the data that existed on tree growth with the Yosemite National Park. In particular, this included two comprehensive surveys: one conducted in the mid 1930s and another during the 1990s.
"Few studies like this exist elsewhere in the world because of a lack of good measurements from the early 20th Century," says Lutz.
Including 21 species of tree recorded by both surveys, the density of large diameter trees fell from 45 trees per hectare to 34 trees, a decline of 24% in just over 60 years. White Firs (Abies concolor), Lodgepole Pines (Pinus contorta) and Jeffrey Pines (Pinus jeffreyi) were affected the most. Smaller size trees were unaffected.
Tree trunk
Trees of this diameter are becoming more scarce (A. J. Larson).
"One of the most shocking aspects of these findings is that they apply to Yosemite National Park," says Lutz. "Yosemite is one of the most protected places in the US. If the declines are occurring here, the situation is unlikely to be better in less protected forests."
The cause is difficult to pin down, but "we certainly think that climate is an important driver," says Lutz.
Higher temperatures decrease the amount of water available to the trees. The suppression of natural wildfires in the park also allows younger trees and shrubs to grow, increasing the competition for the water that is around.
"The decline in large-diameter trees could accelerate as climate in California becomes warmer by mid-century," the researchers warn in the conclusions to their study.
The impact of that is unclear.
"We know that large trees disproportionately affect the ecosystem," says Lutz. "But what the consequences could be of a decline in average large tree diameter, no-one really knows."
