From the Inbox: Tell your representative to remove a toxic polluter giveaway from a spending bill

Donate Join NRDC and help protect the planet's wildlife and wild places Explore Subscribe to NRDC Online, our weekly newsletter, for news you can use Plug In Connect to Switchboard, the NRDC blog Reach Out Send messages in style with our beautiful nature postcards Update Use your Action Center Profile to manage your subscriptions and personal info July 30, 2011 Urgent: Tell your representative to remove a toxic polluter giveaway from a spending bill The House of Representatives is currently debating the funding bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and other environmental agencies for fiscal year 2012. In its present form, the bill would cause unprecedented damage to the environment and public health, not only through funding cuts but also via policy provisions that would prevent the government from safeguarding the public. These policy "riders" would not save the government one cent, but they would block protections for health, clean air and water, lands and wildlife. One especially egregious rider would allow utilities and other polluters to continue spewing mercury, smog, soot and other toxic air pollution at current rates. The EPA intends to enact standards to reduce this pollution, which would save tens of thousands of lives and help reduce children's exposure to mercury, a dangerous brain poison that especially affects developing fetuses, infants and toddlers. But the rider would prevent the EPA from acting. Some members of Congress are standing up to this polluter-driven agenda. Rep. Capps (D-CA) has introduced an amendment to remove the polluter giveaway rider and allow the EPA to do its job to protect us from mercury and other toxic air pollution. The House could vote on the Capps amendment as soon as tomorrow. What to do Send a message right away urging your representative to vote Yes for the Capps amendment to the Interior/EPA appropriations bill (H.R. 2584) and allow the EPA to protect us from dangerous power plant pollution.

From the Inbox - Online Retailers leaving consumers in the dark

TAKE ACTION! Demand Transparency From Online Retailers!
	Q: When shopping online for a new washing machine, where would you find the energy operating cost? A: Click on "Take A Product Tour" or "Manual," "Larger Photo" or something else. It all depends on the retailer! If you think that makes no sense, tell the Federal Trade Commission!
Dear Supporter, Looking for a new appliance online? Federal law requires online retailers to let you know how much it costs to operate. But good luck finding that information, or figuring out what it means relative to other products. The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to ensure that consumers have access to helpful information about energy efficiency, as well as how individual products compare to similar models. While physical products in retail stores are required to display yellow Energy Guide labels containing comparative energy efficiency information, FTC allows online listings for those products to bury that information behind a series of links, with especially unhelpful descriptions like "larger photo," "alternative views," or "manual." (See actual examples.) FTC also lets online retailers do away with the comparison scales that show how products compare to one another in terms of their energy efficiency. This is the virtual equivalent of letting brick-and-mortar retailers remove Energy Guide labels and hide them in desk drawers, or put whiteout over their comparison scales. Earthjustice has filed a formal petition—on behalf of Public Citizen, Consumers Union and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy—calling on the Federal Trade Commission to close this loophole and require online retailers to make the Energy Guide visible and easy to find for all product listings. Now we need your help! If you've been shopping or browsing online for appliances, or if you care about the energy efficiency of the appliances we buy, send a letter to FTC telling the agency that consumers shouldn't have to scour the web just to find information they're legally entitled to: http://action.earthjustice.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=1169 — Earthjustice Because the earth needs a good lawyer

It’s dim up North, so people need bigger brains

People from northern parts of the world have evolved bigger brains and larger eyes to help them to cope with long, dark winters and dim skies, scientists said on Wednesday.

Researchers from Oxford University studied the eye sockets and brain capacity of 55 human skulls from 12 different populations across the world and found that the further human populations live from the equator, the bigger their brains.

It’s not because they are smarter, however, but because they need bigger vision areas in the brain to cope with the low light levels at high latitudes, the scientists said in a report of their findings in the journal Biology Letters.

“As you move away from the equator, there’s less and less light available, so humans have had to evolve bigger and bigger eyes,” said Eiluned Pearce from Oxford’s School of Anthropology, who led the study. “Their brains also need to be bigger to deal with the extra visual input.

“Having bigger brains doesn’t mean that higher latitude humans are smarter, it just means they need bigger brains to be able to see well where they live.”

The skulls used in the study dated back to the 1800s and included samples from indigenous populations of England, Australia, Canary Islands, China, France, India, Kenya, Micronesia, Scandinavia, Somalia, Uganda and the United States.

The researchers plotted the volume of the eye sockets and brain cavities against the latitude of the central point of each individual’s country of origin and found that the size of both the brain and the eyes could be directly linked to the latitude of the country.

Oxford’s Robin Dunbar, who also worked on the study, said the results showed the speed at which humans had evolved to cope with the challenges of new habitats.

“Humans have only lived at high latitudes in Europe and Asia for a few tens of thousands of years, yet they seem to have adapted their visual systems surprisingly rapidly to the cloudy skies, dull weather and long winters,” he said.

The researchers said that from measuring the brain cavity, the study suggested the biggest brains belonged to populations who lived in Scandinavia, and the smallest belonged to Micronesians.


Source:
Toronto Sun,"It’s dim up North, so people need bigger brains", accessed July 28, 2011
Belfast Telegraph, "People in north 'have bigger eyes'", accessed July 28, 2011
Reuters, "It's dim up North, so people need bigger brains", accessed July 28, 2011

Alaska volcano shows signs of impending eruption

Recent satellite images of a remote Alaska volcano along a flight route for major airlines show it may be poised for its first big eruption in 10 years, scientists said. The alert level for an Alaska volcano is being raised after officials say that the persistent thermal anomalies spotted in satellite data merit attention and caution.

The Alaska Volcano Observatory has issued an eruption advisory for the 5,676 foot-tall Cleveland Volcano, located on the uninhabited island of Chuginadak in the Aleutian chain (map at right) about 940 miles southwest of Anchorage.

The advisory was based on "thermal anomalies" detected by satellite, the observatory said on Thursday. Those measurements indicate the volcano could erupt at any moment, spewing ash clouds up to 20,000 feet above sea level with little further warning, the observatory said. (Left: satellite view of volcano @ NASA)

A major eruption could disrupt international air travel because Cleveland Volcano, like others in the Aleutians, lies directly below the commercial airline flight path between North America and Asia, said John Power, scientist-in-charge at the Alaska Volcano Observatory.

The volcano's last major eruption came in 2001, when it blasted ash more than 5 miles into the sky and spilled lava from the summit crater.
On 19th February 2001 Cleveland volcano erupted explosively for 8 hours. An ash cloud reached an altitude of 12 km. The eruption cloud extended in two directions, 40 km northwest and 60 km southeast of the volcano. Ash drifted for 7 h before falling at the town of Nikolski, 75 km northeast of the volcano.

Mt. Cleveland erupted explosively again on 11th March 2001. The eruption was smaller than the 19th February 2001 event, and lasted 3 hours. Ash reached an altitude of 8 km. On 13th March 2001 after 42 hours the ash cloud extended 1000 km towards Kodiak Island. The last explosive eruption occurred on 19th March 2001, and produced an ash cloud to a height of 9 km. Cleveland has experienced several smaller eruptions or suspected eruptions since then.

So far, airlines have not changed their flight patterns because of Cleveland's heat emissions, said Steve McNutt, a University of Alaska Fairbanks scientist who works at the observatory. Data readings have indicated that the volcano may erupt at any moment. If an eruption did occur ash clouds as high as 20,000 feet (3.7 miles) above sea level would be expected, which could severely disrupt air traffic. Airlines operating through the region are aware that an eruption could happen suddenly and without further warning, and are preparing for potential travel chaos.

Scientists are not always certain about what is happening at the remote volcano, observatory officials said. The town of Nikolski, the nearest settlement to Cleveland Volcano, is 45 miles away.

Although Cleveland is among the most active of Alaska's roughly 90 volcanoes, no seismic equipment is set up there because the costs of working in such a remote area are prohibitive, observatory officials said.

Still, Cleveland is the only Alaska volcano blamed for an eruption-caused human death in recorded history. A U.S. soldier who was stationed on Chuginadak Island during World War Two disappeared during an eruption and was presumed killed.

Without sophisticated monitors like those used to keep tabs on volcanoes closer to Anchorage and other populated areas, scientists must rely on a variety of other observations to track Cleveland's eruptions, McNutt said. Those include satellite data, eyewitness reports and video from mariners and pilots in the area.

"Cleveland is a particular bugaboo for us because it is right on the air route" with no seismic equipment, Power said.


Source:
Reuters,"Alaska volcano shows signs of impending eruption", accessed July 25, 2011
Pilot News Magazine, "Alaska volcano shows signs of impending eruption", accessed July 25, 2011
Volcano Live, "Cleveland Volcano", accessed July 25, 2011
The Watchers, "Aleutian Cleveland volcano shows signs of impending eruption", accessed July 25, 2011
The Christian Post, "Alaska Volcano May Erupt, Travel Chaos May Erupt", accessed July 25, 2011

Small fish said vital to seas; lower catches urged

Small fish play a big role in the oceans and catches should be cut sharply to safeguard marine food chains from plankton to blue whales, an international team of experts said on Thursday.

Rising human exploitation of little fish -- including anchovy, sardine, herring, mackerel (at right) and capelin -- had had far less attention in marine research compared to big commercial species such as cod, tuna, swordfish or salmon, they said.

Over-fishing of small fish has "significant effects on other parts of the marine ecosystems," said Tony Smith, the lead author of the study at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia.

He said that the findings, published in the journal Science, were the first comprehensive analysis of how catching small fish, as well as shrimp-like krill, can disrupt marine food chains and so affect human food supplies.

Little fish play a pivotal role since they mainly eat tiny plankton and are in turn food for predators such as large fish, whales or seabirds. Small fish account for more than 30 percent of world fish production and are a key food source for many people in developing nations.

The scientists, who used computer models to study stocks of small fish off Peru, the California current, southern Africa, the North Sea and Australia, suggested that catches of should be cut sharply, perhaps backed up by no-fishing zones.

They said some stocks were harmed even by a level of catches known as the "maximum sustainable yield" (MSY) of a stock.

"Halving exploitation rates would result in much lower impacts on marine ecosystems, while still achieving 80 percent of MSY," the study said.

FISHMEAL

Smith said that lower fishing rates would probably bring long-term economic benefits, as well as helping recovery of other, larger species that have been in decline due to over-fishing.

Smith and other experts in the United States, Britain, South Africa, France, Peru and Australia said that small fish -- were often ground up into fishmeal as feed for livestock or for farmed fish. About 10 to 20 percent were consumed by people.

Big catches of small fish (left: anchovies) often had damaging effects even though it might benefited other creatures lower down the food web, such as plankton, jellyfish or squid.

It said that a complicating factor in this problem was that there were often big natural variations in fish stocks, such as in numbers of anchovies or sardines (right) off Mexico.


Source:
Reuters,"Small fish said vital to seas; lower catches urged", accessed July 25, 2011

How to eat well and save the planet too

Eating used to be simple. If you liked it and could afford it, down the hatch it went. But the days of carefree consumption of food, are a thing of the past, especially for meat lovers. (Left: click on image for enlarged view)

If nonstop -- and contradictory -- pronouncements by doctors as to what you should or shouldn't ingest don't spoil your appetite, dire warnings about the ruinous impact of your favorite dish on the environment or the climate probably will.

The fact that a billion people in the world live in or close to the edge of hunger is also a sobering reminder that even basic needs should never be taken for granted.

So what's a person to eat?

For those who enjoy the luxury of choice, help has come in the form of what may be the most wide-ranging overview so far on how different foodstuffs -- from lentils to lamb chops -- impact the environment, the fight against global warming, and the human body.

Americans’ appetite for meat and dairy – billions of pounds a year from billions of animals – takes a toll on our health, the environment, climate and animal welfare. Producing all this meat and dairy requires large amounts of pesticides, chemical fertilizer, fuel, feed and water. It also generates greenhouse gases and large amounts of toxic manure and wastewater that pollute groundwater, rivers, streams and, ultimately, the ocean. In addition, eating large quantities of beef and processed meats increases your exposure to toxins and is linked to higher rates of health problems, including heart disease, cancer and obesity. (Left: impacts of beef; credit: Environmental Working Group)

U.S. meat consumption has held steady for the past several years, but Americans consume 60 per cent more than Europeans (FAO 2009) and the global appetite for meat is exploding. From 1971 to 2010, worldwide production of meat tripled to around 600 billion pounds while global population grew by just 81 percent (US Census Bureau, International Data Base). At this rate, production will double by 2050 to approximately 1.2 trillion pounds of meat per year, requiring more water, land, fuel, pesticides and fertilizer and causing significant damage to the planet and global health.

It doesn’t have to be this way. You can do something about it. By eating and wasting less meat (especially red and processed meat) and cheese, you can simultaneously improve your health and reduce the climate and environmental impact of food production. And when you do choose to eat meat and cheese, go greener. There are many environmental, health and animal welfare reasons to choose meat and dairy products that come from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals. It may cost more, but when you buy less meat overall, you can afford to go healthier and greener. Need more information? The Environmental Working Group has produced a down-loadable manual to help you get started.

"A Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change and Health" is a 90-page no-nonsense manual to help define a personal comfort zone between what your taste buds crave and what your conscience will allow them to experience. (Click link for a downloadable copy of the PDF formatted report)

Start with the rising threat of climate change, fueled not just by gas and oil combustion but methane-belching animals and the long chain of production that brings their selected body parts to middle-class dinner tables the world over.

"Our assessment calculates the 'cradle-to-grave' carbon footprint of each food item based on greenhouse gas emissions generated before and after the food leaves the farm," said Kari Hamerschlag, a senior analyst at the non-profit Environmental Working Group in Washington D.C.

The analysis, jointly conducted with the Portland, Oregon-based CleanMetrics Corporation, also includes the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow animal feed, the raising of livestock, as well as the processing, transportation and cooking that follows.

Even disposal of leftovers -- a major source of emissions and pollution, as it turns out -- are taken into account.
The same criteria are applied to various farmed fish, grains, dairy products and vegetables too.

No surprise, meat is the prime offender across almost all categories considered.

But as is true of George Orwell's bestiary in "Animal Farm", not all edible critters are equal, at least not when it comes to their harmful impact.

Pound-for-pound, lamb is the worst carbon polluter, generating nearly 40 kilos (86 pounds) of CO2-equivalent for every kilo (2.2 pounds) eaten. The next most carbon-intensive animal -- also a cud-chewing ruminant -- on the list is beef, with emissions of 27 kilos (60 pounds) per kilo.

Looked at another way, eating a modest 110-gram (four-ounce) slice of braised lamb shank is the equivalent of driving a mid-sized car for 21 kilometers (13 miles). The same amount of beef works out to just over half that distance.

"If your family of four skips steak once a week, it's like taking your car off the road for nearly three months," Hamerschlag said.

Americans eat more meat -- exceeding Europeans by 60 percent -- than most other developed nations, with 100 kilos (220 pounds) produced each year for every man, woman and child.

But burgeoning middle-class appetites in rapidly emerging economies, led by China, are closing the gap with frightening speed, recent studies have shown.

In terms of health, the study reviews the well-known hazards of excess meat consumption, including heart disease, diabetes and obesity. It also highlights the widespread and controversial use of antibiotics for livestock and, in the United States, growth hormones.

The next culprit on the scale of climate and environmental impacts is cheese, mainly because of the large quantities of milk needed to produce it.

Pork, farm-raised salmon, chicken and turkey are all on a par when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, but pigs -- the most widely-eaten meat in the world, with China accounting for half of global consumption -- are in a category of their own when it comes to environmental impact. Runoff from waste into fresh water sources and even the ocean are especially problematic.

As is the fact that global consumption of all meats combined has soared, from about 70 million tons in 1960 to about 300 million tons today.

Wasted food, the study found, accounts for fully a fifth of the carbon emissions linked to meat and dairy products in the US, with other rich countries not far behind. Americans waste an astounding amount of food — an estimated 27 percent of the food available for consumption, according to a government study — and it happens at the supermarket, in restaurants and cafeterias and in your very own kitchen. It works out to about a pound of food every day for every American. Fresh produce, milk, grain products and sweeteners made up two-thirds of the waste. The rotting food that ends up in landfills produces methane, a major source of greenhouse gases.

"Reducing waste and buying only as much as you can eat is the easiest way to reduce greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts," it said.

Inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably, the report arrives at this conclusion: vegetables are virtuous. Especially lentils (at left).

That's a hard truth for meat lovers. But there is advice here even for hardcore carnivores who cannot, or will not, kick the habit.

"Meat, eggs and dairy products that are certified organic, humane or grass-fed are generally the least environmentally damaging," Hamerschlag said, with some studies pointing to health benefits too.

In the end, American nutritionist Michael Pollan's seven-word mantra may be all the advice one needs: "Eat [real] food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

For a short pamphlet on how to Eat Well and Sustain the Planet click here. This pamphlet gives seven guidelines to eating better and reducing the carbon footprint of our food choices:

In the opinion of Sustain, the organization for better food and farming, consumers wishing to support a sustainable food system should:

1. Buy local, seasonally available ingredients as standard, to minimize energy used in food production, transport and storage. To see which foods are in season, see, http://www.eattheseasons.co.uk/.

2. Buy food from farming systems that minimize harm to the environment, such as certified organic produce. For information about organic certification, see the website of the UK’s largest organic certification body, the Soil Association.

3. Reduce the amount of foods of animal origin (meat, dairy products and eggs) eaten, as livestock farming is one of the most significant contributors to climate change, and eat meals rich in fruit,
vegetables, pulses, whole grains and nuts. Ensure that meat, dairy products and eggs are produced to high environmental and animal welfare standards. See the website of Compassion in World Farming’s Eat Less Meat campaign: for more information.

4. Stop buying fish species identified as most ‘at risk’ by the Marine Conservation Society, and buy fish only from sustainable sources – such as those accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council.

5. Choose Fairtrade-certified products for foods and drinks imported from poorer countries, to ensure a fair deal for disadvantaged producers. For information about Fairtrade products, click here.

6. Avoid bottled water and instead drink plain or filtered tap water, to minimize transport and packaging waste. For information about the environmental problems associated with bottled water, see Sustain’s report: Have you bottled it? How drinking tap water can help save you and the planet -

7. Protect your and your family’s health and well-being by making sure your meals are made up of generous portions of vegetables, fruit and starchy staples like whole grains, cutting down on salt, fats and oils, and cutting out artificial additives. The Food Standards Agency of the UK has a wealth of advice on all these topics.

And remember Michael Pollan's advice: ""Eat [real] food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Source:
France International News 24/7,"How to eat well and save the planet too", by Marlowe Hood, accessed July 24, 2011
Environmental Working Group, "2011 Meat Eaters Guide", accessed July 23, 2011