This Vertical Garden is located in Pont Juvenal, Aix-en-Provence.
This just shows that it is possible to green our existing infrastructure in two senses of the word. Adding vegetation like this both enhances the aesthetic of the monotonous highway commute and all those little plants can make a small dent in counteracting the greenhouse gas emissions released from thousands of passing automobiles.
You can find someone to deny just about anything, and, I’m making an assumption here, but I would not find it remotely hard to believe that people like this can make a REALLY good living pulling stunts like this.
Treehugger posted this little gem today on their website about a town in the UK called Westbury-sub-Mendip, which was about to lose its last remaining classic red telephone booth. So what do the citizens do to save this historic (be it very small) structure? They turn it into a book exchange. The concept is a simple as it comes. You bring a book that you’ve read and exchange it for one you haven’t yet read. The honesty system applies. This fantastic idea both reuses the old booth, but also encourages the reuse of books. Nothing wasted here.
From: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/phone-box-becomes-library.php
From: The Globe and Mail, 2009
In a very typical and anticipated move, China has decided not to allow millions of Chinese citizens to hear the President of the United States speak when he visited the country today.
The national television station, the Central China Television Network, will not be broadcasting a ‘town hall’ type question and answer period with 500 chinese students in Shanghai. The event will be broadcast on local Shanghai television and on the website of the official Xinhua News station. These two sources will broadcast the event uncensored. But these two news stations aren’t exactly accessible to the country as a whole. The US State Department plans to run feeds of the talk on Twitter, which China says it will allow access to, though as it stands, internet censorship in China does not allow access to Twitter, Facebook, or even Google.
Why the reluctance to allow citizens to hear President Obama speak? They allowed Clinton to speak uncensored – George W Bush too. Maybe it’s because of quotes that supported those who “faced down facism and communism”. Or his warnings that go something like, “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent know that you are on the wrong side of history”.
A bit more on this in: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-restricts-obamas-qa/article1364342/
Hubbard from: www.scientology.net.au
Scientology has been around for a little over half a century now and has been a commercial operation ever since. Founded by L. Ron Hubbard, a prominent Science Fiction writer, best known for his work Battlefield Earth, The Church of Scientology has expanded tremendously and operates in many countries around the world. France has officially stated that the church is a sect, not a religion. It’s sole purpose is to make as much money as possible by manipulating vulnerable people. This past week, the Organization itself was charged with fraud in France. According to the BBC,
In the case leading up to Tuesday’s ruling, a woman said she was sold expensive life-improvement courses, vitamins and other products after taking a personality test.
A second woman alleges she was fired by her Scientologist boss after refusing to undergo testing and sign up to courses.
The Church denied that any mental manipulation took place.
Is this an attack on Religious Freedom? Or is it justified? How is Scientology really any different from Christianity, or Hinduism, or Mormonism? I’m not saying either way. these are just some questions that come to mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8327569.stm
From: ildcalifornia.org
Tree Hugger recently published this brief article on genetically modified organisms in our North American food. I am aware that both the Union of concerned scientists and Tree Hugger are biased towards environmentalism, but I think this article has some good points. To sum it up, the article cites a study recently undertaken by the Union of Concerned Scientists that found that yields from GMO crops are marginally better than those from natural crops. This raises questions about the reasons for using GMO seeds.
If GMOs are developed to increase yields, then hey have failed. If they are marketed to reduce costs for farmers, and the price of GMO corn seed is now triple what it was just a few years ago, then they have failed yet again. If these seeds are engineered to use less herbicides when, according to recent indications, many weeds are becoming roundup-resistant, requiring a cocktail of herbicide applications in certain farming areas while crop land is being abandoned in others, they have most certainly failed!
If these things are true, you’ve got to wonder what is going on in our agriculture industry and why it is going on. It certainly doesn’t seem to be for the benefit of the farmers or the people.
Union of Concerned Scientists: www.uscusa.org
Treehugger Article: www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/why-gmo-foods-have-failed.php?dcitc=daily.nl
Equally or more biased view on GMO benefits: www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/default.asp
From: CTV, 2009
“I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way. “
Dam Reservoir from: Mongabay, 2009
Brazil’s Amazon Rainforest is a hot topic this week it seems. The Guardian Newspaper published an article today on the proposal for 229 small scale dams in the Brazilian Amazon. This comes after my post yesterday on rainforest depletion vs. economic growth in Brazil. The issues are similar. On one hand, you have the farmers, villagers and residents of smaller towns trying to lift themselves out of poverty and grow along with their country’s economy. On the other hand you have the Indian tribes of the Amazon as well as a world wonder of a natural ecosystem that is ultimately quite fragile. The guardian article talks about how the tribes are changing drastically and adapting to modern times, with wireless internet installed recently and televisions in a few homes, all of which are powered by a generator that runs from 9am to 9 pm. The article only makes mention of the village of Pavuru though, leading me to wonder if any of the other 29 directly impacted villages have any of these comforts? Even if they are becoming accustomed to such things, they state that they do not need electricity from the dams. They fear that damming all the tributaries will prevent fish from migrating upstream and thereby cut off their access to some fish – the main source of food for the tribes.
The Amazonian tribes are also displeased with other government plans to build roads, and other hydro-electric dams, inluding plans for one of the largest dams on earth. Once again, I am going to have to side with the rainforest on this one. As with other developing countries in the world, Brazil has the opportunity to develop efficiently and differently than North America and Europe. They can efficiently consume electricity, construct buildings with passive cooling in mind, and plan to grow in harmony with their natural surroundings rather than grow overtop of them. While constructing a select few small scale hydro-electric dams may not have a dramatic effect on the surrounding ecosystem and villages, building one of the world’s largest dams, or blocking most waterways with 229 small dams, will certainly have a detrimental effect. The scale of these projects is simply too large for the system in which they are being placed.
The Guardian Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/23/brazil-amazon-electricity
From: ecofriendlymag, 2009
Community resistance to hosting public need facilities such as power plants and landfills is nothing new. Governments historically have gone into communities and imposed these public need facilities on helpless citizens. Sometimes governments succeed in stifling community opposition but in other cases, communities band together to reject the proposal as was the case with the European and American multi-billion dollar nuclear waste storage plan. The same will likely apply to the storage of nuclear waste in Canada. Or will it?
The Canadian Government has opted to address the storage of nuclear waste by working with the public. On behalf of the Canadian Government, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was tasked with developing a site choosing process which will comprise of two major components: a willing host community and a good geological site with a steady rock formation where groundwater is not easily available. NWMO is working with organizations and individuals on important principles and elements for a fair process to identify an informed and willing community to host the storage facilities. Interested communities are invited to volunteer themselves as a potential host community. It seems that the Canadian Government is willing to cooperate and ask rather than tell. Additionally, the Canadian Government has asked NWMO to work with the host community for 8 to 10 years to discuss concerns and issues regarding storage of nuclear waste.
An aside: Canada has more than two million high-level radioactive bundles of nuclear waste that needs to be stored for approximately 10 000 years. It will cost between 16 and 24 billion dollars just to construct the storage facility. While ample research has been done to ensure safe storage of nuclear waste no one really knows what will happen within the next 10 000 years, or even the next 100 years for that matter. So who should bear the potential unknown risks of storing nuclear waste? While the Canadian Government is putting emphasis on identifying a willing host, aboriginal communities appear to be targeted. NWMO has specifically identified aboriginal consultations as a separate component of implementing a nuclear waste storage plan. Is this a good thing? Are we honourably trying to better educate and consult with aboriginals? Or are we simply trying to entice certain communities who are in desperate need of money and job opportunities? Both of which will be made available to communities who host nuclear waste. Just a thought to consider…
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/19/f-nuclear-waste-storage-options.html
Thanks to Sarah English for contributing
From: Flickr, 2009
After reading an article in the L.A. Times this morning about the loss of Rainforest in Brazil to agriculture, I am once again reminded of the struggle between two opposing forces that often find themselves at odds in developing countries. Do we protect the environment or allow the people to succeed economically?
According to Mongabay, Brazil has lost an average of 34 660 square kilometers of rainforest per year between the years 2000 and 2005. While this is a very small percentage of the total rainforest cover, it is certainly a lot of land, and it has only increased since then. Many of us know that deforestation in general is not helping with air pollution or climate change. We need trees to produce oxygen and sustain life. Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest is not only reducing the global tree population, but is directly depleting one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth.
On the flip side, Brazilians and other South Americans have the opportunity to finally make some money by clearing their land of trees and selling grains and cows to North America, Europe, and other parts of the world. In fact, this has been strongly encouraged in Brazil with benefits being provided to those who clear at least 80% of their land.
So we are presented with quite a difficult situation. How can we support the economic gain of such South American countries without compromising the beloved rainforest? It is obvious that we cannot continue on the current path forever until the forests are entirely lost. So do we search for a solution now, or just play it off – business as usual – until we have little to no rainforest left, and we see the extinction of millions of species? My vote lies with finding a solution now. Yet the solutions that are being presented don’t sit right with me. Things like North American countries paying paying South American countries to keep their land forested. This is the equivalent of social welfare to me, except the people receiving money are fully capable of work . To pay a farmer to not do something seems terribly backwards. Maybe some solutions lie in new industries, or shade-grown crops? There must be a way that South America can rise in the world market without destroying its vast and beautiful ecosystems.
L.A. Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/science/earth/22degrees.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
