Our Oceans are Under Attack

Remembering the Purpose of Earth Day

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-j...the-purpose-o_b_7155274.html?utm_hp_ref=green

Forty-five years ago, people were sick and dying from air and water pollution. They were fed up. Millions of protesters took to the streets to express their appreciation of the planet and demand its protection. One of the co-founders of Earth Day, then-Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey, says the movement resulted in the defeat of corrupt politicians and spurred a quarter-century of bipartisan environmental legislation.
In 1970, industrialization was at its height. Garbage was dumped into rivers and bays, sewage flowed straight into the ocean, and toxic chemicals from factories and leaded gasoline exhaust from cars were fouling the air. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio was so polluted that it caught on fire.
Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin had witnessed the Santa Barbara oil spill and came up with the idea to combine the energy of the anti-Vietnam-War movement with public awareness about pollution in order to put environmental protection on the political agenda. He turned to Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey, who represented the San Francisco Peninsula, and to Denis Hayes, a young Stanford graduate and activist, to create a national teach-in on the environment. Hayes built up a large staff across the country and worked with thousands of universities, colleges and schools to promote the event. On April 22, 1970, 20 million Americans marched in the streets to protest against environmental ignorance and pollution.
The mood in the country was ripe for environmental protection and regulations. In the 1970 election, seven of 12 members of Congress with dismal environmental policy records, dubbed the "Dirty Dozen" by the Earth Day movement, lost their seats. Landmark environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Estuary Protection Act, were signed by the Republican president, Richard Nixon.
We see the effects of climate change in California as we confront an ironic pair of threats: drought and flooding. The governor has mandated a 25-percent cut in water use on land because of the drought, yet we are surrounded by ocean water that will flood our land if we don't prepare for sea level rise. San Francisco and San Mateo counties, both of which I represent, are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. The Bay has risen eight inches over the last century, and scientists expect it to rise at least another foot and a half by 2050
Sea level rise, ocean acidification, species extinctions, erratic weather events, decreased agricultural yields, harm to human health and lower worker productivity are real and costly consequences of climate change. It is past time that we reclaim the spirit of the original Earth Day and make 2015 a year of bipartisan action to preserve our natural resources and the health of our planet. We owe it to future generations.

 

Study Blames Global Warming for 75 Percent of Very Hot Days

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/study-blames-global-warming-75-percent-hot-days-30612371

If you find yourself sweating out a day that is monstrously hot, chances are you can blame humanity. A new report links three out of four such days to man's effects on climate.

And as climate change worsens around mid-century, that percentage of extremely hot days being caused by man-made greenhouse gases will push past 95 percent, according to the new study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Humans have not had as great an effect on heavy downpours, though. The Swiss scientists who did the study calculated that 18 percent of extreme rain events are caused by global warming. But if the world warms another two degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) — expected to happen around mid-century — about 39 percent of the downpours would be attributed to humanity's influence, according to the study. That influence comes from greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

"This new study helps get the actual probability or odds of human influence," said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck, who wasn't part of the research. "This is key: If you don't like hot temperature extremes that we're getting, you now know how you can reduce the odds of such events by reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Lead author Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university, and colleague Reto Knutti examined just the hottest of hot days, the hottest one-tenth of one percent. Using 25 different computer models. Fischer and Knutti simulated a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and found those hot days happened once every three years.

Then they calculated how many times they happen with the current level of heat-trapping gases and the number increases to four days. So three of the four are human caused, the team said.

 

4 Green Technologies You Probably Haven’t Heard Of

http://usgreentechnology.com/4-green-technologies-probably-havent-heard/

1. Urine-tricity

Yes, you read that correctly: power derived from urine.

Once you get past the unusualness of it, the concept of urine-tricity is pretty darn amazing. It’s also a legitimate technology – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the project and Yannis Leropoulos of the Bristol BioEnergy Center is heading up the effort to turn human waste into clean electricity.

The idea behind urine-tricity is to have urinal pipes connected directly to microbial fuel cells (MFCs), which contain live microorganisms that create a by-product of electrons after feeding on the urine. The MFCs have electrodes in them that that enable the electrons to transfer which will then result in a current.

The hope is that the unique technology can be particularly useful in developing countries that face challenges with both sanitation and energy. The technology is still being developed, but it’s already been shown to have the capacity to power an average cell phone. Given that the world produces around 6.4 trillion liters of urine a year, this could become a seriously viable option for renewable, green energy.

2. CO2 Dry Cleaning

Unlike traditional cleaning methods, it doesn’t use any water and it doesn’t rely on chemicals that are harmful to the environment. So, it does the job without resulting in waste in the form of precious water or dangerous chemical runoff. It’s a big step in making manufacturing an industry that poses less of a threat to the environment.

3. Lab Meat

Regardless of your eating habits, as long as you live on planet Earth, you should see lab-grown meat as great news. The meat industry has huge negative effects on our environment. Everything from feeding the animals to the harmful methane gas that they produce makes the meat industry an unviable practice.

But don’t worry, environmental scientists are not going to tell you to stop eating meat. Instead, they are developing real meat that can be created in labs. So-called “in vitro meat” is produced using cells that are harmlessly derived from live animals and then grow and multiply in the lab. At this point, it’s still not economically efficient, but it soon may be.

4. Vertical Farming

According to some population projections, by the year 2050, there will be a whopping 3 billion more people on the planet than there are today. And to meet their needs, a huge amount of farming land will be needed to grow food – to give you an idea, about 20% more than the total area of Brazil. Well, there’s a lot of land out there, so that shouldn’t be a problem, right? Wrong.

In fact, almost 80% of the world’s viable farming land is already being used for crops. Plus, our current farm land is extremely vulnerable to severe weather and climate change. So, if we hope to be able sustain this ever-growing population, something drastically different needs to be done about our food sources. Enter vertical farming, which is just what it sounds like.

 

A group of Dutch citizens headed to court this week in a bold effort to hold their government accountable for its inaction over climate change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...618.html?cps=gravity_2684_8040044270574933098

The plaintiffs' lawyers argue that the current policies of the Dutch government are insufficient to halt climate change, and that the government is thus illegally endangering its citizens. They are asking the court to force the Netherlands to reduce its carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, a far greater reduction than the government is currently aiming for.

The stakes are high for the Netherlands. Rising sea levels are a major concern for the low-lying country, where 60 percent of gross domestic product is produced below sea level.

The case also has the potential to set a stunning legal precedent -- that governments are required under human rights law to protect their citizens from climate change.

"We are doing this because we love our country, the Belgians and our children," one of the group's founders, Serge de Gheldere, says on the Climate Case website. "Consider it as a lawsuit of love."

 

UN scientists call for action on marine microplastics

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tists-call-for-action-on-marine-microplastics

Experts say recycling based on ‘circular economy’ is the most effective way of reducing amount of microplastic ending up in the ocean, reports Ends Europe

It could prove all but impossible to tackle the problem of microplastics in the ocean, but better management of waste plastic is an important first step, a major UN report indicates.

The UN’s group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine environmental protection urged the development of a recycling-based ‘circular economy’ as the most effective and cheapest means of reducing the amount of microplastics – tiny particles of less than 5mm in diameter – accumulating in the ocean.

Effective policies to reduce the amount of plastic ending up in the ocean are urgently needed, the first global study on the sources of microplastics and their impact on the environment concluded.

But even if all releases of plastic to the environment ceased immediately, the microplastic problem would persist due to the continued fragmentation of plastic bags, bottles and other rubbish in the ocean.


http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ing-8m-tonnes-of-plastic-in-oceans-every-year
Coastal communities dumping 8m tonnes of plastic in oceans every year an annual figure that could double over the next decade without major improvements in waste management efforts, scientists warn.
China ranked top polluter as figures suggest total plastic litter ending up in the seas could rise tenfold by 2025

 

NZ's dairy pollution cost may be $15b: report

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/far...94/nzs-dairy-pollution-cost-may-be-15b-report

The costs of repairing the damage from dairy farming could be as high as $15 billion, according to a new scientific paper.

That figure does not include the cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.

The New Zealand Dairy Farming: Milking Our Environment for All its Worth paper focuses on four issues: removing nitrates from drinking water (potential cost of repair $10.7bn); soil compaction ($611 million); greenhouse gas emissions ($3.1bn) and clean, green image ($569m).

Co-author Dr Mike Joy of Massey University said the environmental costs of dairy farming "at the higher end" exceeded the export value of dairy for 2012 of $11.6bn.

The past few decades had seen a four-fold increase in milk production and a doubling of the number of dairy cows.

Recently, taxpayer funds have been directed at multi-million dollar clean-ups for example in the Rotorua Lakes, Lake Taupo, the Manawatu River and Lake Wairarapa.

"These are just the tip of the iceberg. The degradation is far more extensive and will increase due to delays in pollution effects being seen; this is because nitrogen can take years even decades to move through the subsurface to waterways," Joy said.

 

Dairy pollution cost may be $15b: report.
The cost of repairing the damage could be as high as $15b,according to a new scientific paper.That figure does not include the cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.
The New Zealand Dairy farming: Milking Our Environment for All it`s worth paper focuses on four issues etc.,...finish..New Zealand is after the multi billion infant Formula business which is a product that should not even be manufactured and should not be fed to young babies except as a very last resort. A challenge to Human Evolution.We do not know how to make a replacement or even a supplement for breast milk.

Until Humans find a way that does not rely on money to solve the many problems we have created there is little chance of any success.

 

Dairy is nature's perfect food -- but only if you're a calf.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dairy-free-dairy-6-reason_b_558876.html

If that sounds shocking to you, it's because very few people are willing to tell the truth about dairy. In fact, criticizing milk in America is like taking on motherhood, apple pie, or baseball. But that's just what I'm about to do.


The Truth about Dairy

According to Dr. Willett, who has done many studies and reviewed the research on this topic, there are many reasons to pass up milk, including:

1. Milk doesn't reduce fractures.(i) Contrary to popular belief, eating dairy products has never been shown to reduce fracture risk. In fact, according to the Nurses' Health Study dairy may increase risk of fractures by 50 percent!

2. Less dairy, better bones. Countries with lowest rates of dairy and calcium consumption (like those in Africa and Asia) have the lowest rates of osteoporosis.

3. Calcium isn't as bone-protective as we thought.(ii) Studies of calcium supplementation have shown no benefit in reducing fracture risk. Vitamin D appears to be much more important than calcium in preventing fractures.

4. Calcium may raise cancer risk. Research shows that higher intakes of both calcium and dairy products may increase a man's risk of prostate cancer by 30 to 50 percent.(iii) Plus, dairy consumption increases the body's level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) -- a known cancer promoter.

5. Calcium has benefits that dairy doesn't. Calcium supplements, but not dairy products, may reduce the risk of colon cancer.(iv)

6. Not everyone can stomach dairy.(v) About 75 percent of the world's population is genetically unable to properly digest milk and other dairy products -- a problem called lactose intolerance.

Based on such findings, Dr. Willet has come to some important conclusions:

• Everybody needs calcium -- but probably not as much as our government's recommended daily allowance (RDA) and calcium from diet, including greens and beans is better utilized by the body with less risk than calcium supplements.

• Calcium probably doesn't prevent broken bones. Few people in this country are likely to reduce their fracture risk by getting more calcium.

• Men may not want to take calcium supplements. Supplements of calcium and vitamin D may be reasonable for women.

• Dairy may be unhealthy. Advocating dairy consumption may have negative effects on health.
If all that isn't enough to swear you off milk, there are a few other scientific findings worth noting. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently asked the UDSA to look into the scientific basis of the claims made in the "milk mustache" ads. Their panel of scientists stated the truth clearly:

• Milk doesn't benefit sports performance.

• There's no evidence that dairy is good for your bones or prevents osteoporosis -- in fact, the animal protein it contains may help cause bone loss!

• Dairy is linked to prostate cancer.

• It's full of saturated fat and is linked to heart disease.

• Dairy causes digestive problems for the 75 percent of people with lactose intolerance.

• Dairy aggravates irritable bowel syndrome.

Simply put, the FTC asked the dairy industry, "Got Proof?" -- and the answer was NO!

Plus, dairy may contribute to even more health problems, like:

• Allergies (vi)
• Sinus problems
• Ear infections
• Type 1 diabetes (vii)
• Chronic constipation (viii)
• Anemia (in children)

 

75% is a slight exaggeration.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance says:

So it comes down to ethnicity, age, and whether you have it growing up.

 

Lactose Intolerant Statistics

http://www.statisticbrain.com/lactose-intolerance-statistics/

Total percentage of people who are lactose intolerant 33%
Total percentage of adults that have a decrease in lactase activity 75%
Total percentage of people who maintain ability to digest lactose after childhood 40%
Total number of Americans who are lactose intolerant 40 million
Total percent of all African-American, Jewish, Mexican-American, and Native American Adults who are lactose intolerant 75%
Total percent of Asian-Americans that are lactose intolerant 90%
Average amount of time it takes for side effects of lactose intolerance to occur after intake 30 min

Tags:

 

8 Dangerous Side Effects of Fracking That the Industry Doesn't Want You to Hear About

http://www.alternet.org/environment...-fracking-industry-doesnt-want-you-hear-about

40,000: gallons of chemicals used for each fracturing site
•8 million: number of gallons of water used per fracking
•600: number of chemicals used in the fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as lead, benzene, uranium, radium, methanol, mercury, hydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol and formaldehyde
•10,000: number of feet into the ground that the fracking fluid is injected through a drilled pipeline
•1.1 million: number of active gas wells in the United States
•72 trillion: gallons of water needed to run current gas wells
•360 billion: gallons of chemicals needed to run current gas wells
•300,000: number of barrel of natural gas produced a day from fracking

And here are eight of the worst side effects of fracking you don't hear about from those slick TV commercials paid for by the industry.

1. Burning the furniture to heat the house.

During the fracking process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the well and contaminate nearby groundwater. The contaminated water is used for drinking water in local communities. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near fracking areas as well as cases of sensory, respiratory and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.

A single well can produce more than a million gallons of wastewater, which contains radioactive elements like radium and carcinogenic hydrocarbons like benzene. In addition, methane concentrations are 17 times higher in drinking-water wells near fracking sites than in normal wells. Only 30-50 percent of the fracturing fluid is recovered; the rest is left in the ground and is not biodegradable.

2. Squeezed out.

More than 90 percent of the water used in fracking well never returns to the surface. Since that water is permanently removed from the natural water cycle, this is bad news for drought-afflicted or water-stressed states, such as Arkansas, California, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Texas and Wyoming.

3. Bad for babies.

The waste fluid left over from the fracking process is left in open-air pits to evaporate, which releases dangerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain and ground-level ozone.

Exposure to diesel particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide and volatile hydrocarbons can lead to a host of health problems, including asthma, headaches, high blood pressure, anemia, heart attacks and cancer.

It can also have a damaging effect on immune and reproductive systems, as well as fetal and child development. A 2014 study conducted by the Colorado Department of Environmental and Occupational Health found that mothers who live near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have babies with congenital heart defects.

4. Killer gas.

A recent study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that homes located in suburban and rural areas near fracking sites have an overall radon concentration 39 percent higher than those located in non-fracking urban areas. The study included almost 2 million radon readings taken between 1987 and 2013 done in over 860,000 buildings from every county, mostly homes.

A naturally occurring radioactive gas formed by the decay of uranium in rock, soil and water, radon—odorless, tasteless and invisible—moves through the ground and into the air, while some remains dissolved in groundwater where it can appear in water wells. It is the second leading cause of lung cancer worldwide, after smoking. The EPA estimates approximately 21,000 lung cancer deaths in the U.S. are radon-related.

5. Shifting sands.

In addition to all the water and toxic chemicals, fracking requires the use of fine sand, or frac sand, which has driven a silica sand mining boom in Minnesota and Wisconsin, which together have 164 active frac sand facilities with 20 more proposed. Both states are where most of the stuff is produced and where regulations are lax for air and water pollution monitoring. Northeastern Iowa has also become a primary source.

"Silica can impede breathing and cause respiratory irritation, cough, airway obstruction and poor lung function," according to Environmental Working Group. "Chronic or long-term exposure can lead to lung inflammation, bronchitis and emphysema and produce a severe lung disease known as silicosis, a form of pulmonary fibrosis. Silica-related lung disease is incurable and can be fatal, killing hundreds of workers in the U.S. each year."

6. Shake, rattle and roll.

On April 20, the U.S. Geological Survey released a long-awaited report that confirmed what many scientists have long speculated: the fracking process causes earthquakes. Specifically, over the last seven years, geologically stable regions of the U.S., including parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas, have experienced movements in faults that have not moved in millions of years. Plus, it's difficult or impossible to predict where future fracking-caused earthquakes will occur.

7. The heat is on.

Natural gas is mostly methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas that traps 86 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. And because methane leaks during the fracking process, fracking may be worse than burning coal, mooting the claim that natural gas burns more cleanly than coal.

"When you frack, some of that gas leaks out into the atmosphere," writes 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben. "If enough of it leaks out before you can get it to a power plant and burn it, then it's no better, in climate terms, than burning coal. If enough of it leaks, America's substitution of gas for coal is in fact not slowing global warming."

8. Quid pro quo?

Finally, one of the more insidious side effects of fracking is less about the amount of chemicals flowing into the ground and more about the amount of money flowing into politicians' campaign coffers from the fracking industry.

According to a 2013 report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), contributions from fracking trade groups and companies operating fracking wells to congressional candidates representing states and districts where fracking occurs rose by more than 230 percent between the 2004 and 2012 election cycles, from $2.1 million to $6.9 million.

That is nearly twice as much as the increase in contributions from the fracking industry to candidates from non-fracking districts during the same period, outpacing contributions from the entire oil and gas industry to all congressional candidates. Republican congressional candidates have received nearly 80 percent of fracking industry contributions.

 

Between 2010 and 2012, the U.S. market for fake meat crossed the half-billion-dollar mark.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/fake-meat-market-surging
Whether you’re a strict vegetarian or a contented carnivore, meat poses a vexing efficiency problem. Crowded into feedlots, the modern cow burns through an estimated 25 pounds of corn and soybeans for every pound of edible meat it generates.
Why not just eat the protein-rich grain and beans that go into all that feed rather than running them through the body of an animal first?

When author Frances Moore Lappé first asked this question in 1971 in her game-changing manifesto, Diet for a Small Planet, global meat production stood at about 121 million tons annually. Today that output exceeds 300 million tons per year—and it’s projected to exceed 500 million tons by 2050 as economies modernize and demand for meat increases in developing countries like China.

If this ever comes to pass, the planet simply won’t be able to handle the additional strain on its already stressed resources. As ecologist Vaclav Smil says, global meat production is one of humanity’s “most environmentally burdensome activities,” fouling groundwater, spewing greenhouse gases, and eroding soil at untenable rates. By his estimate, the earth is capable of supporting no more than 220 million tons of annual meat production—meaning we’ve already entered unsustainable territory.

If Smil and the many, many others who share his view are correct, then clearly the problem is serious. And fixing it will mean marshaling the most innovative thinking to change the way the world consumes and produces protein. Unsurprisingly, several titans of Silicon Valley—where perpetual invention and love of problem-solving meet the profit motive—have been investing heavily in start-ups that aim to do this very thing. They’re all betting big on a food industry sector that saw its sales rise 8 percent between 2010 and 2012, the same year that the U.S. market for fake meat crossed the half-billion-dollar mark.

Surprisingly, the chief driver for consumers doesn’t appear to be a dietary shift toward vegetarianism; according to a 2013 report by the market research firm Mintel, about one-third of the people who buy meat alternatives identify as carnivores who are simply trying to eat less meat.

Several of the new businesses are developing ways to alter the form and taste of beans and grains so that they’re virtually indistinguishable from real meat—right down to the fibrous texture of muscle and even the subtle tang of blood. Others are dedicated to synthesizing actual flesh from living animal cells without killing any animals while doing so.

But some experts, Smil included, doubt that “mock meat” will ever be “anything but a marginal choice” for most consumers. With each new iteration, however, the new protein gets closer and closer to looking, cooking, and tasting like the real thing. At some point, it will get there. Whether people will actually make the switch, en masse, remains to be seen.

Meet the New Meat

http://www.hamptoncreek.com/
WHO’S BEHIND IT: Hampton Creek has raised more than $100 million from a loose affiliation of angel investors including Sun Microsystems cofounder Vinod Khosla, twin brothers Ali and Hadi Partovi (who have a knack for picking winners, including Facebook, Zappos, and Dropbox), and the Hong Kong*–based venture capitalist Li Ka-shing, whose firm, Horizons Ventures, also owns sizable stakes in Facebook and Spotify.

http://beyondmeat.com/
WHO’S BEHIND IT: Early investors included ex–Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and Twitter cofounders Biz Stone and Evan Williams.

http://impossiblefoods.com/
WHO’S BEHIND IT: Gates and Khosla (who also have stakes in Beyond Meat and Hampton Creek, respectively) were early investors, as was Google Ventures, the company’s in-house start-up incubator. From them and a handful of others, Brown was able to raise $75 million.

http://modernmeadow.com/
WHO’S BEHIND IT: Forgacs received a grant from Breakout Labs, a business incubator funded by PayPal cofounder*–turned–venture capitalist Peter Thiel. And last summer, Li Ka-shing’s Horizons Ventures (also a stakeholder in Hampton Creek) invested $10 million in the company, which is now developing lab-grown leather while continuing to improve and refine its cultured meat. (Maybe start with the funny color, guys.)

http://culturedbeef.net/
WHO’S BEHIND IT: A large chunk of the project is being bankrolled by Google cofounder Sergey Brin, who—as Post recently told Time magazine—injected enough new funding after a 2013 taste test to allow a fourfold increase in staffing, from 5 to 20.

 

Jane Goodall: “We’re Destroying the Planet”

http://www.alternet.org/environment/jane-goodall-were-destroying-planet

The legendary scientist says climate is the biggest problem and the biggest culprit is animal agriculture.

On the topic of our planet’s future, Jane Goodall, the legendary chimpanzee researcher, does not mince words: “How is it possible that the most intellectual creature that has ever walked on planet earth is destroying its only home?” Dr. Goodall, who is 81, spends 300 days year traveling the world in an effort to save it. The biggest problem, she says, is climate change. And the biggest culprit? Animal agriculture.

In a lecture to hundreds of fans in NYC on April 15th, Dr. Goodall explained that agribusinesses are clearing rainforests in the Amazon to graze cattle and grow crops to feed them. Without rainforests – the “lungs of the earth” – the planet’s ability to convert carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, into oxygen is compromised.

Even more harmful than CO2, Goodall said, is the methane gas emitted in cow farts. As developing countries adopt Western diets heavy in animal protein, more methane and CO2 are released into the atmosphere, further warming the planet and jeopardizing our ability to inhabit it.

During her talk, Dr. Goodall described some of the other destructive effects of animal agriculture, including land and water pollution, antibiotic resistance, depletion of fresh water resources and animal cruelty, which is was motivated her to go veg. In a recent interview with the Toronto Globe & Mail, she said, “I became a vegetarian because of the horrendous suffering on factory farms and in abattoirs.”

 

Oops I was looking for boatdesign,not the USLIS forum.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/04/1-6-species-could-be-killed-climate-change

Plants and animals around the world are already suffering from the negative impacts of manmade global warming—including shrinking habitats and the spread of disease. A great number are also facing the ultimate demise—outright extinction—among them the iconic polar bear, some fish species, coral, trees... the list goes on.

While most of the research on this topic so far has been piecemeal, one species at a time, a new study out today in Science offers the most comprehensive view to date of the future of extinction. The outlook is pretty grim.

The research, conducted by evolutionary biologist Mark Urban of the University of Connecticut, analyzes 131 other scientific papers for clues about how climate change is affecting the overall rate of species extinction. The result is alarming: One out of every six species could face extinction if global warming continues on its current path. The picture is less dire if we manage to curb climate change, dropping to only 5.2 percent of species if warming is kept within the internationally-agreed upon target of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels

"The Sixth Extinction," by Elizabeth Kolbert. The New Yorker journalist argued that when you look at the combined toll that pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change is taking on the planet's biodiversity, humans are driving extinction on a scale only preceded in the geologic record by cataclysmic natural disasters (like the meteor that likely brought about the demise of the dinosaurs). Never before has one species been responsible for the demise of so many others.