Investigations Brief
While Shell’s ads feature pristine wildernesses, happy fish, and flowering smoke stacks, Shell continues to poison the people that live near its operations, rapidly expand the most destructive oil extraction operations, and increase its greenhouse gas emissions.  Meanwhile, Shell is also trying to influence the climate policy debate, with targeted policy recommendations and thousands of dollars in lobby funding.

Background
Royal Dutch Shell is a multinational oil company with British and Dutch origins. It is one of the largest private sector energy corporations in the world, with its main business being exploration for and production, distribution and marketing of oil and gas . With 104,000 employees in more than 110 countries, the company claims to play a key role in helping to meet the world’s gherowing demand for energy in economically, environmentally and socially responsible ways [1]. Last year Shell made over $31B in profits, which amounts to $85M in profits every day [2].

Campaign Details
Shell oil spends millions promoting an image of environmental responsibility and innovation.  Shell ads talk about cleaning the air and water, and use environmental images to promote its products.  The company is exaggerating its environmental claims, while diverting attention away from its dirty and destructive core business.

The Outcome
Shell continues to spend millions on green advertising messages, while also continuing to devastate the plant and lobby Congress and the White House.

[1] Shell website
[2] Royal Dutch Shell 2007 Annual Report

While many of our politicians are busy debating false solutions like drilling the OCS, nuclear energy, and carbon capture and sequestration, global warming is already wreaking havoc on planet Earth. For instance, five infectious diseases that have been virtually eradicated in the developed world are thriving as temperatures rise across the globe.

Our federal politicians may be delaying action, but several state governments and businesses are moving forward on their own. Here are some of the most promising developments from just the past couple weeks:

• Construction has begun on New Mexico’s first geothermal power plant, which is expected to be generating 10 megawatts of power by next year.
• Two California businesses announced they are building the world’s largest solar power arrays, which will be capable of producing up to 800 megawatts on a sunny day. This is not only a boon to California’s energy mix but also “the latest indication that solar energy is starting to achieve a significant scale,” according to the New York Times.
• Google announced it was investing $10 million in a “breakthrough” geothermal technology as part of its plan to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into sustainable energy development.
• Even global warming-denying federal legislators may soon be treading on recycled carpet when they report to work in our nation’s capitol thanks to new legislation that would make Washington D.C. the first major American city to require new construction projects to follow the standards of the U.S. Green Building Council.
• In Colorado, a local power company met their goal of providing 10% of the state’s power through sustainable sources eight years ahead of schedule, prompting them to double the target to 20%. In the past 18 months alone, Colorado’s wind energy capacity has quadrupled.

A frequent argument against making the switch to sustainable energy sources is that the technology is not there yet, or that it would be prohibitively expensive to make the switch. Not only do they greatly underestimate the engenuity and industriousness of the American people, but these arguments are just plain wrong, as these projects demonstrate. Renewable energy technologies are ready to go, and citizens and industry leaders alike are ready to start seriously combating global warming. All that’s lacking is the political will in Washington.

The North Atlantic right whale is very rare—there are only about 300 in existence today. Recent news that these magnificent whales may finally get a helping hand highlights the sad, sad state of the right whales. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials released a final analysis to slow down ship speeds and use shipping routes that avoid whale grounds along the U.S. east coast where the whales live.

But, what does this “final analysis” really do for the whales? Well, nothing right now.  In my mind it is like being engaged. There is the “promise” to get married, but also the possibility for the couple to go their separate ways. And, just how long will the engagement last? NOAA has promised to save the right whales, but how long will their “engagement” last? Will they elope and have the regulations enacted tomorrow, or will it drag on and on for months or years?

Did I mention that there were only 300 right whales left on the planet? Right whales have been fighting for increased protections for years and years. I remember going to a public testimony, probably about two or three years ago on this very same issue. NOAA had an open comment period and I was on hand to present thousands of public petitions in support of saving the right whales. But, sadly, there haven’t been any increased protections—just the promise that some day there might be. Is this good enough?

A 44-foot right whale washed up on a beach in Massachusetts on March 11th of this year. A ship strike is the probable cause of death.

Oh, and if these regulations do get implemented the U.S. government made some exemptions. The U.S. Navy is exempt from these rules about slowing down. And, the regulations will only be in place for five years—that is unless another round of “red tape” and bureaucratic analysis takes place.

While the government continues to use every stall tactic in the book, right whales continue to swim in harms way. Ship strikes are the largest known cause of death for the endangered North Atlantic right whale, particularly baby calves.

I have been lucky to see two right whales in my lifetime. One was during a whale watching adventure in New England (where I got insanely sunburned) and the other is a “squishy” toy that a colleague got for me. I hope my children will be able to see real right whales and not just the toy sitting up on my desk.

--Michelle

Greenpeace applauds the decision by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) to limit bottom trawl fisheries in the northern Bering Sea. Any cutback on this destructive fishery practice is welcome news. However, in this case, it’s misleading.

Industrial fishing, with the exception of the use of bottom trawlers, will continue in these areas. And provisions included in the decision raise alarm bells that plans may be in the making to eventually re-open the area to bottom trawlers to do their damage.

Bottom trawl lobbyists are pressuring the NPFMC to open more of this “northern boundary” because, as they themselves have testified before the Council, the fish are moving north due to climate change, and their boats have to travel further north to find fish. The other reason, one which they are not talking about, is that heavy fishing pressure in the southern Bering Sea has dramatically reduced populations of many groundfish stocks.

The size of the closure area is also misleading. As with the Aleutian Island bottom trawl closure adopted previously, a large percentage of this area of no trawl fishing is in an area where no fishing has taken place due to its depth and distance from on shore processors. No one fished there anyway. So while this is a forward-looking and precautionary step, action is urgently needed to address damage from bottom trawling that is occurring now in known coral and sponge habitats.  

Incorporating Greenpeace research, NOAA has identified several deep sea coral areas that currently lack protection. Last year, Greenpeace used submarines and a Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) to survey seafloor habitats in two underwater canyons along the highly productive Bering Sea shelf break. Zhemchug Canyon, the world’s largest, had never been explored.  We found at least 14 species of coral, and more than 20 species of sponge – including one that was previously unknown to science. Alarmingly, we also saw documented considerable evidence of fishing impacts – trenches dug through the seafloor, and broken and overturned corals.

Virtually none of the Bering Sea or Gulf of Alaska is protected from all fishing, despite the growing body of evidence of the value of marine reserves in fisheries management.  Fully protected marine reserves can help speed the recovery of fish stocks and degraded habitats, and have proven to increase yields in surrounding areas due to a spillover effect. By serving as experimental controls, marine reserves can also help us understand the impacts of climate change on our oceans and fisheries.

It’s time for the NPFMC to take a more ecosystem-based approach, and to protect the habitats that sustain Alaska’s fisheries. So far, most of what we’ve seen has looked good on paper but has had little impact on the status quo. And in the meantime, fish stocks continue to dwindle, critical habitat continues to be destroyed, and fishing communities continue to await relief.


-- George

 

 

Earlier this summer, the Department of Interior stopped dragging its feet when it came to protecting the polar bear. After three years of obfuscation, they finally listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This might seem like a victory, but there are enough holes in this listing to leave the polar bear unprotected against its biggest threat, global warming.

Those holes may now be widening with the Bush administration's latest attack on the planet--an underhanded and dangerous attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act. How? By making it more difficult for a species to gain protection by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in which to determine whether a species is likely to become extinct or not. For species like whales and grizzly bears, who enjoy long lives, that could spell disaster. If these changes take effect, regulators will be able to look into the "forseeble future" only 20 generations or 10 years, whichever they decide. The shortened timeframe could make responsbile decision making on threatened species a thing of the past.

All of this may seem like legal mumbo-jumbo until you come across an article like this that reminds you what's at stake. Here's another reminder: there's only 75 days to the election. Vote smart.       

There’s a secret that Kimberly-Clark does not want you to know: Every Kleenex tissue is made from ancient forests. In fact, the tissues contain no recycled fiber at all. None. Instead, Kleenex is made from trees up to 180 years old cut from ancient forests that are up to 10,000 years old. These forests are home to eagles, bears, foxes and endangered caribou that are losing more habitat with every box of Kleenex bought.

Despite mounting pressure Kleenex’s parent company, the Kimberly-Clark Corporation, has been unwilling to improve its practices, continuing to rely on paper and pulp made from clearcut Endangered forest, including North America's Boreal Forest.  Kimberly-Clark clears these ancient forests, essential in fighting climate change and providing home to wildlife like caribou, wolves, eagles and bears, to make products that are flushed down the toilet or thrown away.

We made an animation with famous artist Mark Fiore to show just how ridiculous Kimberly-Clark's new partnership with Pixar is. They're making Kleenex boxes with Wall-E on the side, nevermind that the film was about destroying the earth. Enjoy!

  

Hurricane Katrina's third anniversary is in two weeks, Aug. 29th. In another preemptive strike, albeit a PR one this time, President Bush is going down to New Orleans to tout progress. His prepared remarks say that much work remains to be done, and no doubt that's true. While the Gulf Coast's long-term health remains in question, we know for sure that Bush's vision for the area doesn't include protecting it by halting climate change. Should it? Should he be concluding that no matter how many resources we pump into the Bayou, it won't be secure until global warming is arrested?

The question is a complex one. One thing we know for sure is that hurricanes, which are dependent on warm water temperatures, were coming onto shore and reeking havoc long before the internal combustion engine was in production. We also know that although North America has dealt with a horrific string of bad storms--with Katrina as the headliner--in other parts of the world hurricane frequency is actually on the decline. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we know from high school physics that science is not very good at taking an uncontrolled event and attributing a direct cause to it, even if the link seems obvious.     

Pew says we'd be in error to draw a direct link between global warming and the ferocity and frequency of hurricanes:

So, although we cannot be certain global warming intensified Katrina per se, it clearly has created circumstances under which powerful storms are more likely to occur at this point in history (and in the future) than they were in the past. Moreover, it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that Katrina was not intensified by global warming. A reasonable assessment of the science suggests that we will face similar events again and that powerful storms are likely to happen more often than we have been accustomed to in the past.

The thing about global warming though (and what gives me cause for optimism in the fight to outfox it) is that it exposes so many of our other environmental and social problems. Even if Katrina wasn't directly fueled by a warming climate, it was made worse by wetland loss, deforestation and a large concentrated population of poor people. Those are problems that must be dealt with to fix the climate, and those are problems Bush should address when he speaks to New Orleans’ recovery. This is about more than rebuilding buildings and streets, much like lowering gas prices is about more than the price at the pump. The problems are systemic and need systemic solutions. Brownie is gone. Chertoff is offstage. Only Bush remains. Can he make the connection? Judging by his remarks, no. 

 

 

 

 

 

The NY Times is reporting today on a possible confirmation that the legendary Bigfoot is real. Two hunters claim they have found the hairy beast and then chose to store him in a refrigerator.  I wonder if the Big Guy frequents the Boreal Forest, where Kimberly-Clark harvests ancient virgin forest for their disposable products? If so, his home is disappearing.

SAN FRANCISCO — In the hairy and hoax-filled history of Bigfoot, those who believe in the mythical beast have offered up all manner of evidence, from grainy photos to hoarse recordings to tracks of those aforementioned feet.

But on Friday at a hotel in Palo Alto, Calif., a pair of Bigfoot hunters say they will present what they contend is the most definitive proof yet of an animal that science says does not exist: DNA evidence and photographs of a dead specimen they say they found in a remote swath of woods in northern Georgia. More here.

Update: Surprise! It's a hoax. Reuters is reporting that genetic testing shows the Bigfoot was really a human and an opossum. 

New update: Bigfoot Body Revealed To Be A Rubber Gorilla Suit.

Richard Brooks of Greenpeace Canada makes the list for the 50 Most Influential People in Pulp and Paper Today, according to RISI. Here's what they had to say about Richard:

14. Richard Brooks, Greenpeace

A group of citizens came together in 1971 to create Greenpeace. Their mission was to protest US nuclear testing off the coast of Alaska. These activists made history by bringing worldwide attention to the dangers of nuclear testing. The focus of the organization has now turned to other environmental issues, including targeting Kimberly Clark for their unwillingness to create a fiber policy that increases the use of recycled fiber. Richard Brooks is the coordinator of Greenpeace’s forest campaign in Canada, which aims to preserve intact forest areas, implement sustainable forestry and transform the forest products industry. He and his team have leveraged Greenpeace’s unique brand of markets mobilization and direct action campaigning to pressure some of the largest forest product companies in the world. Richard has brought international attention to the globally important Boreal Forest and the role that the pulp and paper sector plays in deciding its future.

Congrats, Richard.

--DJK

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think the Bush Adminstration is connected to Big Oil? This is real, by the way.

 

 

In certain regions of the Gulf of Mexico, there is not enough oxygen in the water to support marine life. Fish either suffocate or relocate to other areas. And, it’s not a tiny little area—it’s a big area we’re talking about. It is around 8,000 square miles, that’s about the size of New Jersey. But, what happened to the oxygen? Where’d it all go? Scientists point north, hundreds of miles up the Mississippi River to corn country.

Up in corn country, farmers use a boatload of chemicals to make their cornfields more productive. Two chemicals that are of particular concern are nitrogen and phosphorous. They are used in many fertilizers. But, when the rain shows up to nourish these crops, the water causes the fertilizers to runoff the farmland and into the mighty Mississippi River.

And, with this summer’s historic flooding in the Midwest, even more runoff from farms has been going into the mighty Mississippi. And, all of this creates a mighty mess once it gets to the Gulf of Mexico.

Just imagine how much fertilizer makes its way to the Gulf of Mexico? The Mississippi River collects all these chemicals throughout its entire length and all of it ends up in one place—the Gulf of Mexico.

Like I mentioned above, the fertilizers are used to help crops grow—well, the same is true for making algae grow in the Gulf of Mexico. These fertilizers land in the Gulf and the algae just love it. They go crazy for it and there are algae blooms and the algae grows like wild!

When all the algae die and fall to the bottom of the seafloor, this is where the story takes a turn for the worst. The algae dies and decomposes—but, since decomposition requires oxygen to make it “work” these huge masses of dying algae consume oxygen, and lots of it.

So much oxygen is taken from the sea that sealife suffocates and dies. The poor slow-moving creatures like clams, small crabs and snails have little chance to escape the oxygen-depleted waters.

Fishermen and environmentalists are actually on the same page and working together to fight this problem. Fishermen see their livelihood vanishing just like the fish in the Gulf and environmentalists want to restore the balance of the sea.

And, the Gulf of Mexico isn’t the only place where dead zones are occurring—these dead zones are scattered all across the globe.

--Michelle

 

 

Barack Obama’s campaign has announced that the Democratic nominee will unveil his Veep pick this week. No one outside Obama’s inner circle knows for sure who the pick will be, but all signs point to a small number of possible picks. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has been mentioned, as has Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. But do their pro-coal stances undercut Obama’s commitments on climate change?

Kaine supported a new coal-burning power plant in Wise County, Virginia, and hasn’t backed away from his support. Bayh, Indiana’s junior senator, has stiff resistance from antiwar advocates after his 2003 vote authorizing the Iraq war, enough opposition that a Facebook group was started to reverse draft him from Obama's short list.  How’s Bayh on coal? Not much better than Kaine. Here’s a 2006 quote from the senator applauding the IRS’s decision to award a tax credit to Duke Energy for a new Indiana coal plant.

"The most effective way to ensure that Hoosiers will continue to have access to clean, affordable energy is to invest in new technologies that use our own resources like coal, which is abundant in Indiana," Senator Bayh said. "This tax credit will add gasified coal power to other sources of homegrown energy, like biodiesel and ethanol, that provide good jobs for Hoosier workers while protecting America's air and water."  

I’m confident that there are other possibilities for Veep that haven’t been touted in public yet. Kaine and Bayh, however, are sure to raise the hackles of those who want firm commitments from Obama on coal and climate. Selecting either would make it difficult for Vice President Al Gore to campaign for Obama as well. After all, Gore famously called for a moratorium on the production of new coal plants. Stay tuned.

--DJK 

The House GOP, who as a group rarely ever shy away from verbal pomposity and disturbing flashes of fact aversion, have been shouting to anyone willing to listen this week about House Speaker Pelosi's resistance to legitimize their farcical calls for a vote on OCS--outer continental shelf drilling. Thanks to Think Progress, here's a good list of their strange comparisions of Pelosi to a dictator:

– Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI): "This is the people's House. This is not Pelosi's politiburo."

– Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): "She's gonna bring us back and not deal with it? The American people are gonna hang her."

– Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC): "When the people of France were starving, they went to the queen and said, 'The people have no bread.' The queen's answer was, 'Let them eat cake.' That is not the kind of answer we expect from the leader of the people's house in the United States of America."

– Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ): "There's going to be a change in this policy, Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding. She can't repress us forever."

– Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO): "I can't answer why she's acting like a dictator."

– Rep. Denny Rehlberg (R-MT): "Nancy Pelosi should not hold the American people hostage."

– Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX): "In your mind, do you believe America is a democracy or a dictatorship?"

Got it? Since Pelosi won't yield to the House GOP's calls for a gimmick vote on drilling, she's an American-style represser, dictator, or out-of-touch aristocrat. I wonder what that makes the  Department of Energy, who says that driling won't have a substantial impact on record gas prices? You can email all of these folks making these grandiose (and flat out wrong) statements about Pelosi at www.projecthotset.org. Tell them they should spend less time trying to paint the Speaker as a facist and more time switching our economy to one that runs on clean and green technologies instead of dirty fuels.   

It's been said that Hollywood and the World Wide Web have long been the domain of progressives, but there's increasing chatter that the Right needs to find their own voice in these mediums. And maybe now they have. No doubt buoyed by The Dark Knight's recent box office success, the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd seems sufficiently encouraged enough to try out a new star--Newt Gingrich. Newt, last seen in Al Gore's We Campaign commercials relaxing with Hillary Clinton on a couch and calling for action on climate, has a new video up on his America Solutions site encouraging those swell Gen Xers to send in their own videos about destroying the planet, er, I mean, drilling to reduce pain at the pump. Watch the video here. The best submission, selected by Newt himself, wins free gas for a year. Hurrah!

If you're not properly inspired by Newt's first foray into the 21st century, you can take real action to solve our energy problems here.

Some really great news out of Indonesia:

AMSTERDAM – The Indonesian province of Riau has pledged to halt the destruction of its forests and peatlands; a move that will prevent billions of tonnes of carbon from entering the atmosphere.

At a ceremony in the provincial capital Pekanbaru, Riau Governor Wan Abu Bakar announced the temporary ban, which will remain in place until a law is agreed. The move follows Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s pledge at the G-8 Summit in July to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation by 50 percent by 2009.

Indonesia is the world’s 3rd largest global warming polluter, mostly due to deforestation. In many cases, the forests of Indonesia are being cut down illegally to make way for palm plantations. Forest fires in Indonesia have been called the single largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.

Aside from the direct impact a ban on deforestation in Indonesia will have on the amount of pollution being dumped into our atmosphere, it’s just nice to see that some of the world’s leaders actually made meaningful commitments to combatting global warming at the G8 summit. Other commitments made at that summit were not close to being ambitious enough to really tackle the enormity of the climate crisis we’re facing. It’s just nice to see some progress.

When I hear a piece of news, I usually take it with a grain of salt. So, earlier in the week when I read an article about humpback whale populations making an incredible recovery, let’s just say I was very skeptical. The reason I was skeptical, is because time and time again we hear that animals are taken off the endangered species list—only to help developers build in a certain area or air quality standards get relaxed, not because of “so-called” improved air, but because industry wants to loosen emission regulations.

Recently, the IUCN (World Conservation Union) reported that humpback whales have downgraded from Vulnerable to Least Concern, meaning it is at low risk of extinction.

I am really happy that humpback whales are doing much better! And, the credit goes to conservation efforts and the fact that humpbacks have been protected from commercial hunting.

But, my worry is now that the humpback whale has been “down-graded” some of their protections will be lifted. They will receive less habitat protection and many will feel that they are now in the running for commercial hunting once again. Why waste all the good work protecting them, just to go back in and decimate their populations again?

It’s also interesting to note that while some species have started to recover, no whale population has reached the level it had before industrial whaling began. Whales species are either recovering very slowly, or not recovering at all. Clearly, commercial whaling is neither sustainable nor necessary in the 21st century.

I hope the news of the humpback recovery is just the beginning! If resources continue to be put towards recover efforts and commercial whalers can keep their “hands-off”—then, it truly will be a good day for the humpbacks.

--Michelle

This post was originally published April 26, 2008:

As American nuclear corporations move toward constructing new reactors in the U.S., it’s important that we remember the downside of the nuclear industry on this 22nd Anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster.

The fact is that none of these corporations would ever construct another reactor if they were held liable for the consequences of the catastrophic accident that could occur. Less than a month after the disaster, NRC Commissioner James K. Asselstine testified to Congress that,

While we hope that their occurrence is unlikely, there are accident sequences for U.S. plants that can lead to rupture or bypassing of containment in U.S. reactors which would result in the off-site release of fission products comparable or worse than the releases estimated by the NRC staff to have taken place during the Chernobyl accident.

That is why the Commission told Congress recently that it could not rule out a commercial nuclear power plant accident in the United States resulting in tens of billions of dollars of property losses and injuries to the public.

The nuclear industry and their propagandists would like the public to forget or ignore this nuclear disaster.  But those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.  

Unfortunately, former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore is now one of these pro-nuclear propagandists downplaying the consequences of this disaster. In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster,  and prior to pulling a paycheck from the Nuclear Energy Institute and forming CASEnergy, he issued a document entitled:

 “SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR DISASTER”
by Patrick Moore, Ph. D.
Greenpeace Foundation of Canada

 

 

Mr. Moore went on to conclude that:

 

The facts concerning the Chernobyl disaster haven’t changed and neither has the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is a dangerous technology that would never be built if corporations bore the true cost and liability for the potential consequences. However, it seems Mr. Moore has either forgotten the facts about Chernobyl or has been paid to ignore them. Neither of which is acceptable.  

For more information on the Chernobyl Accident and reactor risks:

American Chernobyl: Nuclear “Near Misses” at U.S. Reactors Since 1986.
Greenpeace 2007.

Risky Business: The Probability and Consequences of a Nuclear Accident
Greenpeace

CHERNOBYL: Some Lessons  and Implications for Lower Quality Electric Utilities,  Donaldson. Lutkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, 1986


For additional information on Mr. Moore & his current activities see:

Spinning the Atom in Mother Jones Magazine


 

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

Yesterday at the Kimberly-Clark (K-C) facility in Roswell, GA, several Greenpeace activists met the employee lunch crowd with a message of sustainability. The grounds of this facility, the largest of K-C’s office complexes, are picturesque, pristinely manicured, complete with a centrally located pond and jogging track. It was gorgeously landscaped (in fact, we even saw the care-crew) with flowers, shrubs, and, yes, trees. Lots of trees. Big, beautiful, arching canopies cast leafy shade upon the campus nestled in the northern Atlanta suburbs. Yes, it is ironic that the world’s largest producer of Kleenex tissues, with a known history of unsustainable logging practices, has a campus so populated with trees.

And it also seems ironic that time and time again, Greenpeace has to reiterate to K-C the importance of using wood that has been sustainability logged and incorporating recycled fiber into their products. Obviously, they see and appreciate the beauty of nature. They understand that their employees value a work environment connected to the natural world. Yet they are not willing to put this practice into their tissue making.  

So, using the landscape to our advantage, a crew of Greenpeace activists deployed a boat into the pond at this Georgia facility. The teamwork was seamless; the boat was floating in the pond in mere minutes. Three activists, Nate Stellhorn (Austin Frontline), Suzahn Ebrahimian (DC Frontline), and Sheila Hanley (Austin, former GOT, former Frontline) paddled to the center of the pond and deployed three banners while reading aloud, through a bull-horn, the case study Greenpeace put out of K-C's mismanagement of the Kenogami Forest. Called Cut & Run, the case study exposes Kimberly-Clark’s 70-year history of sourcing fiber from the Kenogami Forest in Ontario, Canada, and tells the story of horrific forest degradation, social injustice towards indigenous tribes, and field reports of decreasing wolverine, caribou, and eagle populations — all the result of K-C producing their disposable products.

While the boat was deployed, several members of the team distributed fliers onto the cars of K-C execs. The fliers stated that producing tissues out of a limited resource is no longer acceptable or sustainable when products can be made containing recycled content. The fliers also invited K-C employees to ask their employer to be an environmental leader.

As the security was quite tight, six activists were brought to the Roswell Detention Center, but not before the message was delivered loud and clear, thanks to the bullhorns, that K-C needs to change its ways. The activists were tired and hungry by the time they were released from jail, but nonetheless happy and healthy.

We know deep down, somewhere, Kimberly-Clark cares about the environment. We saw it.

We are not deterred.


Until the ancient forests are protected,
Andrea

In an exciting victory for children in the United States, President Bush signed into law national product-safety legislation that will ban certain chemicals from being used when producing toys. The new law ensures that toys and child-care products are free of brain-damaging materials like lead, and several types of phthalates, a chemical used to soften plastic that has been linked to hormonal problems in children.

Last month, this legislation passed in Congress. I am impressed that Congress was able to do the right thing and protect our children, even in the face of some very heavy lobbying against these new safety regulations by ExxonMobil who manufactures phthalates.

If you are a parent concerned about toxics in your children’s toys – there is a website you can check out for product safety guides --  www.HealthyToys.org

--Michelle

 

In an epic bid to test the veracity of the old adage that repeating a lie often enough makes it true, several of our politicians, ostensibly our “leaders,” are still calling for drilling the OCS as a means to alleviate high gas prices and lead America toward energy independence.

We should be extra careful not to help validate their claims by saying things like, “It won’t lower gas prices for 10 years.” By accepting the idea that gas prices will be lowered at all, you just help perpetuate the myth that we should start drilling as soon as possible. Drilling will not lower gas prices because, as the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell recently said, “easy-to-produce oil and gas [will] likely peak in the next 10 years.” Drilling costs will skyrocket as we tap these harder-to-reach oilfields, offsetting any possible benefit of increased oil production, meaning that drilling the OCS will have a thoroughly negligible impact on gas prices no matter when we start drilling.

But all of the claims made by the Drill Now chorus have been thoroughly debunked, of course. Here’s a factsheet on the topic that compiles research done by independent parties, or in some cases done by federal agencies. (Ah, the irony: Bush is one of the loudest voices calling for drilling the OCS, and it is his federal agencies that have debunked many of his claims.)

For instance, we have 3% of the world’s oil reserves, but consume 24% of the world’s oil (Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquid Resources, 1999 Annual Report," DOE/EIA-0216 (99) (December 2000)). Clearly, the path to energy independence does not lead down an oil well.

The only real way out of this mess we’re in is to invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Instead of making bogus claims about drilling the OCS, our federal legislators should be passing tax credits and other incentives for investment in renewable energy. Unfortunately, as Thomas Friedman recently pointed out in a scathing op-ed, the Senate has failed on eight separate occasions to renew tax credits for solar and wind investment that are set to expire in December. This has scared off many potential investors, in America and abroad.

Our “leaders” want us to open more land to drilling by oil companies that are already making a killing, but they can’t muster the political will to give tax credits to the folks who are working to implement real solutions. It’s ridiculous.

If you’re as pissed as me about this, tell Congress not to give in to the call to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. They should be concentrating on real solutions.

One of the most used comments bantered in the halls of the hotels where the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) holds their meetings where many of the decisions are already decided with the big, wild, commercial fishing industry with the public is “best available science.” The NPFMC usually holds their meetings at the Hilton hotel in Anchorage four times a year. And, although no one says it, the process is a “good ol boys” conference. My brother is fond of telling me; the industry writes the regulations. But, even though the cards are stacked up against me and others who have concerns and try to offer alternatives toward habitat protections, I attend. Its part of my responsibility. I often feel like my attendance is futile and a waste of time. Anyway, “best available science.”

The use of that term as an acceptable tool to manage our fisheries seems to me is like saying: “best available truth.” Remember the most famous question ever asked in all of humanity? “What is truth?” And so I wonder, what is “best available science. What does that mean and how does that help our people in the villages?”

Well, NPFMC, Mr. Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez of the U.S. Department of Commerce, we have a problem. What does your “best available science” or “best available truth” tell you about our out of control salmon by catch problems in Western Alaska? The problem is this. Really huge, large, big industrialized fishing machines, called boats, use huge, large, big nets and go out into the waters of southern Bering Sea, just north of the Alaska Peninsula to fish for 3.2 billion pounds of pollock, the total allowable catch from both the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. And as they vacuum up these fish, a very important food source of the foods we depend upon for our survival, they “accidentally catch”  hundreds of thousands, and millions of salmon during the past 30 years, in their pursuit of happiness. This is by catch. In 2004, they caught, as far as we know, 63,000 king salmon. In 2005, 75,000 kings. Chum salmon took a huge hit. In 2004, 447,000 chums, and in 2005, 700,000 chums. That’s according to their best available truth. If I remember correctly, in 2007, they said they caught 117,000 king salmon while in pursuit of happiness, their happiness. Never mind our people’s food security in our villages that depend on these fish for survival. The song and dance is getting old. Outside multinational fishing companies, meeting with the federal government in a hotel somewhere destroying our home. Destroying our dreams. Destroying our children. And saying, well, sorry. It’s legal. It may be, but it is immoral.

A really good friend of mine once told me: “our commercial fishing season for king salmon on the Kuskokwim River lasted for 60 minutes, all year!” And he has a family, Children. And he cannot do anything, anything about it, because like you and me, he is poor. He cannot afford to attend one of them meetings in a hotel somewhere to testify for three minutes about his concerns, nor, like you and me, he cannot afford a lawyer or a lobbyist. And so, he hears “best available science” spoken from reputable scientists and NPFMC members. And to further add salt to the wound, the Council will say, we are only an advisory council. Mr. Gutierrez makes the final decision. Know what? Uncle Ted in his wisdom thru the Magnuson Stevens Act set it up like this.

Well, the NPFMC says they have a solution to deal with this salmon by catch, stolen fish problem. Here it is, in brief. Lets not force our good buddies who go out to the Bering Sea to fish for a share of the 3.2 billion pounds of pollock they catch every year to suffer to much. After all, they are our buds. Lets let them continue stealing food from the people on the Kuskokwim River, but, really, not too much. Lets put a cap on how much they can take out of the mouths of our children. Now, really. And further, lets let one of the biggest fishing companies who participate in this immoral practice, Trident Seafoods, give that fish to Bean’s Café to feed the hungry. Peter stealing from Paul to feed people? And now, others are caught up in their circle of destruction, being used to make themselves feel better about what they are doing and getting a huge tax write off to boot. See how this “best available science” and “best available truth” works? And so the question: “what is truth?”

The only real solution to this problem is stop it. Stop the insane practice of by catch. Stop raiding our people’s food. Stop. And use your “best available science” to figure out how not to do it any more. After all, you use that statement to justify what you do. And, in many cases, you give the scientists who use that statement, grants to provide research to justify that behavior. We the people in Western Alaska have had enough of supporting your pursuit of happiness. We need to pursue ours and that of our children. Please, level the playing field. Your quarterbacks are just too “best available.” You can afford it. We cannot even afford to feed our children.


George Pletnikoff is Unangan from the Pribilof Islands. He now works for Greenpeace as the Alaska Oceans Campaigner in Anchorage. He can be reached at george.pletnikoff@greenpeace.org

Biomimicry is the art of using the natural world as a basis for man-made designs. Wikpedia puts it better: “Biomimicry (from bios, meaning life, and mimesis, meaning to imitate) is a relatively new science that studies nature, its models, systems, processes and elements and then imitates or takes creative inspiration from them to solve human problems sustainably.”

Real world examples include emulating the passive cooling of termite mounds in office buildings, applying the water repellant properties of lotus plants in fabric finishes, and adapting the echolocation abilities of bats for use in walking canes for the blind.

To me this is just a very cool idea: observing how nature has solved various problems, like overheating in Saharan termite mounds, then applying those lessons to human endeavors. The Earth is the ultimate sustainable resource, so it would seem obvious that we should learn everything we can about engineering and design from the natural world if we’re going to learn how to live as a part of the planet rather than living off of the planet – by which I mean, if we’re going to learn to live sustainably rather than continuing to live by raping and pillaging the Earth for all its resources.

Turns out some researchers at MIT have used biomimicry to make a potentially huge breakthrough in developing next-gen solar energy systems:

Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."

Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed an unprecedented process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power your house or your electric car, day or night.

This is obviously a long way from being commercially available, but it’s nice to know this is on the horizon. This could be one of the breakthroughs that totally reshapes our energy industries: “Nocera hopes that within 10 years, homeowners will be able to power their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells, while using excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power their own household fuel cell. Electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past.”

That last line, of course, points out the biggest barrier to implementation of solar energy – it’s not the pace of technological development holding us back, but the companies who are making a killing off of supplying us all with power. You see, they are a centralized power source, a monopoly, an entity from whom you have to purchase your power. If everyone is able to make power at their home, we’ll have a decentralized energy grid where everyone is an independent energy producer. This is the way of the future, make no mistake – but that doesn’t mean plenty of industry players and their paid hacks won’t be vociferously protesting the deployment of these technologies.

Growing up, I always loved listening to Bryan Adams. I think I may have even had a couple posters of him hanging up on my bedroom walls. So, when I found a YouTube video of him being interviewed by the BBC and wearing a Release Junichi and Toru t-shirt I just had to share it with everyone.

Junichi and Toru are Greenpeace anti-whaling activists who were being held for 23 days without charge for uncovering a whale meat smuggling scandal in Japan. Currently, the activsts are out on bail and awaiting trial. You can read more about their story on the Greenpeace website.

I'll post the video up here, but after watching the video for 8 minutes, the talk show hosts don't even ask him about the t-shirt. How upsetting. But, hopefully people will want to learn more and will be able to google it and find the Greenpeace information.