“Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” the president said, vowing that “we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”

To realize these goals, Obama’s administration must collaborate with Native American tribes to realize their vast wind and solar power potential. For instance, using solar power alone, Native lands have the potential to generate about 4.5 times the amount of electricity that is produced in the entire United States. Tribal wind resources could provide a double digit percentage of the country’s electricity, as well.

In addition, a green jobs initiative could transition the most wasteful economy in the world into one that has a chance at surviving, all while providing economic development where it’s needed most. By working with Native American tribes, the Obama administration can catalyze the development of tremendous human and economic potential in some of the country’s poorest communities.

For too many years, Washington presented tribes with a false choice: either develop polluting energy resources or remain in dire poverty. Often, the oil and mining companies ripped the tribes off by underpaying royalties, even as they polluted the land. But economic development does not need to come at the expense of Native cultural identity or thriving ecosystems.

The Obama administration should not provide more incentives to extract fossil fuels and uranium from Indian country. These are the dirty resources of yesterday. They have assaulted the well-being of tribes and Alaska Native villages, exploiting the vulnerabilities of poor, politically isolated communities for too long. Oil drilling in sensitive Arctic regions threatens Alaska Natives’ way of life and perpetuates Washington’s addiction to oil. We need a federal timeout on the proposed offshore development of the Outer Continental Shelf areas in Alaska.

Nor is “clean coal” the answer. Mining coal is never clean. Coal plant emissions cause global warming. Obama should not approve coal expansion on or near Native lands. Carbon “sequestration” is unproven. There is no sure way to sequester “forever” — except to leave it in the earth.

And nuclear power is not a solution to anything. Mining uranium has caused high levels of cancer deaths among Native peoples. (There are still 1,000 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo reservation from the last nuclear era.) What’s more, nuclear waste contaminates the earth for a hundred thousand years.

The Obama administration must end corporate welfare to coal, gas, oil and nuclear industries and redirect the billions in subsidies to clean energy development and efficiency in Native America.

Native American and Alaskan Native peoples have suffered the most from our senseless carbon-based energy policy. For example, the entire indigenous village of Shishmaref in Alaska will need to relocate because of rising temperatures and nastier storms, ruining the way of life there.

To turn things around, the Obama administration should provide funding for wind and solar development on Native lands along with efficiency improvements in tribal housing.

Tribally owned and operated renewable energy projects, along with green jobs that help reduce dependence on fossil fuels, are central to a sustainable and affordable low-carbon future.

A green jobs economy and a new, forward-thinking energy and climate policy will transform tribal and other rural economies and provide the basis for a robust and sustainable recovery.

Now is the time.

Winona LaDuke is the executive director of Honor the Earth, a Native organization that stresses sustainable environmental policies. Honor the Earth submitted an extended version of this information to the Obama administration’s transition team with allies Intertribal Council On Utility Policy, Indigenous Environmental Network and the International Indian Treaty Council. LaDuke can be reached pmproj@progressive.org.

Related posts:

1. Budget Falls A Long Way Short On Green Action
2. Gina Dowding wins ballot for chance to become first Green MP

President Obama, in his first major environmental act since taking office, will order the Environmental Protection Agency today to move swiftly on a request by California and other states to set the nation’s toughest vehicle emissions standards.

Obama plans to make the announcement at a White House ceremony, according to congressional sources briefed on the plan. The move signals a sharp break with the Bush administration, which rejected California’s request to enforce its rules limiting greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

While Obama’s order only requires the EPA to reconsider California’s request, all sides expect the agency will approve it. His new EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, must finish a formal review before making the decision, but environmentalists were already cheering the likely outcome.

“These are monumental decisions that will have an immediate impact in reducing global warming pollution in the United States,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Just days into office, President Obama is showing America and the world that he will lead our country in a bold new direction to protect the environment and fight global warming.”

Obama’s presidential directive could ultimately transform the entire U.S. auto fleet. If the EPA approves California’s request for a waiver to enforce its rules, any state can opt for either the federal or the state’s emissions standards. Thirteen states have adopted California’s rules, covering about half the nation’s population, and a half-dozen more, including Florida, are considering doing so. Automakers probably would be forced to sell more fuel efficient cars and trucks in every showroom nationwide.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has lobbied Obama to approve the state’s request, called his expected announcement “more than welcome news.”

“An immediate EPA review of the waiver decision shows respect for California and the 18 other states … who are waiting for the green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles,” Boxer said. “When the waiver is signed, it will be a signal to Detroit that a huge market awaits them if they do the right thing and produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible.”

The auto industry opposes California’s rules and has fought a long-running legal battle to block the standards. Automakers have warned of the perils of creating a patchwork of vehicle emissions rules and have lobbied Congress instead for a single national standard.

California’s rules would require vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2016. The transportation sector is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, at about 38 percent of total emissions.

The state’s regulations are much more stringent than even the higher fuel economy standards passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2007, which requires vehicles to reach an average fuel economy of 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015. The state’s rules require automakers to meet a fleetwide average of 36 miles per gallon by 2016.

Obama’s directive is also expected to force the Transportation Department to complete interim fuel economy standards to implement the 2007 law, which the Bush administration chose not to do. The goal is to speed the shift to more efficient vehicles, and the new rules would be issued by March so automakers would have time to update their fleet for the 2011 model year.

The East Room announcement is expected to be attended by Jackson, top EPA and Transportation Department officials and environmentalists, among others, Capitol Hill sources said.

Obama’s decision is a victory for California leaders, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols, who wrote letters last week urging the president to take action. Schwarzenegger’s spokesman, Aaron McLear, said Sunday night that the governor was “withholding comment until the president has something to say.”

California’s landmark law limiting greenhouse gas emissions was written by former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills (Los Angeles County) and passed by the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2002. It was supposed to go into effect starting in the 2009 model year. One thorny issue the EPA may decide is in which model year California’s rules would now take effect to give automakers enough time to transition.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who was in the Assembly when the law was passed, said Obama’s announcement “represents the beginning of a very different and much more positive relationship between California and the federal government.”

“California did not get a whole lot of attention in the past eight years,” Steinberg said. “This is an important signal that things will be different.”

Derek Walker, director of the California Climate Initiative for the Environmental Defense Fund, said Obama’s move also suggests that the new president rejected the automakers’ assertions that California’s rules would hurt the industry and the economy.

“This is a tremendous out-of-the-gate move by the new president and shows that he is taking a fresh look at environmental and energy policy from the perspective of sound science,” Walker said. “It also shows that he understands the strong nexus between economic stimulus and environmental protection.”

Related posts:

1. EPA Won’t Act on Emissions
2. Bush signs G8 deal to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

by JOEL TAYLOR

The legislation provides the world’s first legally binding targets for a country to reduce carbon emissions.

Its aim is to cut 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 80 per cent in 2050.

Environmentalists welcomed the ‘historic’ laws but called on the government to go further by developing a low-carbon economy.

They were also concerned that one of the statutes - the Planning Act - would make it easier for large projects, such as new airports, to be given the go-ahead.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, said the new legislation ‘will be instrumental in reducing carbon emissions and removing barriers to enable industry to invest in important new infrastructure’.

It would also give people an incentive ‘to use energy more efficiently and generate their own heat and energy’, he added.

Friends of the Earth said the government should now set up a low-carbon economy by investing in green energy and lowering energy waste.

‘It will create exciting business opportunities, thousands of jobs and help lead Britain out of recession,’ said executive director Andy Atkins.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England was concerned about decision-making powers being given to the ‘unaccountable and unelected’ Independent Planning Commission.

Related posts:

1. Caroline Lucas at Climate Camp
2. UK on target to tackle global warming, apparently

As plastic never goes away, it eventually crumbles up into tiny bits (photo-degrades). These bits of plastic enter the food supply and are passed from the jelly fish all the way back up to humans where it is stored in their livers (that part is only fair). Plastic also pollutes the water with PCB’s (PolyChlorinated Biphenyls, dangerous carcinogens and hormone disruptors).

While no one person is to blame, every person has contributed to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (it’s a safe bet the Atlantic also has one lurking somewhere). Whether one throws litter on the ground or trusts in their municipal trash companies to do it for them, everyone throws away plastic and it ends up in the ocean and then back in our bodies.

While some say cleanup is impossible, hopefully someday someone will find a solution. Perhaps they will find a way to convert plastic to energy (it is made of oil after all), and they can make a ship refueling station out there that will produce energy from plastic. Or perhaps nanotech robots can disassemble it and bring it to the recycler. (Such technology would be extremely dangerous as it would have to be careful not to accidentally disassemble Kenny Rogers face). In the meantime there are many things people can do to at least help prevent this pile of garbage from getting any larger.

Ways to Reduce Plastic in Landfills

1) Avoid Products that use Plastic to Begin With

Plastic is made from petroleum hence it is so ubiquitous today. Plastic is convenient but most of the cheaper grades (the clear stuff) find its way into our food, often leaving a film on anything that is wrapped in it and which we then eat. Microwaving anything in plastic cooks plastic residues right into the food, vaporizing other chemicals that contaminate the food and air. Consider the amount of sheer waste a single meal or even serving produces (Kraft Singles is second only to Individually Wrapped Breaths of Air ™ in the Most Wasteful Products Award). Reuse glass or Tupperware containers for leftovers instead of plastic wrap. Store water in the high grade blue plastic bottles only. Prefer cheese that is made from raw milk.

2) Kick the Bottle

High on the list of most wasteful products is Individually Wrapped Drinks of Water, a lingering 1990’s fad for those pretending to be health conscious. Picture a lake compared to a lake of plastic bottles and that is basically what we now have in the Pacific. Corporations are taking over town aquifers and selling it back to the people for $2 per bottle. Shipping one bottle of water costs on average 1/3 bottle of fuel. It is best to filter or distill your own water and use metal or glass containers. Companies like Nalgene make trendy reusable water containers of high grade plastic. Opt for tap water with lemon in restaurants. Note: wait staff seem trained to always supply a plastic straw with every drink (probably so you don’t notice the lipstick on the rim of the glass), so remember to request no straw with your drink.

3) Recycle or Reuse Materials

Plastic can be recycled and you will find that when you start recycling you at least save money on trash bags. Many containers can be washed out and reused (though they should be sterilized with apple cider vinegar). Note that only the higher grade plastics can be reused.

4) Choose Products with Biodegradable Plastic

Now many plastic cups along with packaging peanuts and other supplies are available in a biodegradable form. Companies like Ecosafe and Natur-Tec are providing real solutions to the plastic problem.

5) Repair, Sell or Upgrade Gadgets

Many people run out and buy the latest new cell phone or iPod more often than needed, discarding their old phones in the rubbish where they not only add to plastic landfill but also leak out various other contaminants like Mercury. Meanwhile older components, while larger, are often superior as they tend to be constructed of much more solid materials. By repairing your items you can keep things in top shape much longer. Tackle small problems when they arise. Take the time to fix things right. Buy used products when possible and sell your items when they are no longer needed. Prefer products that offer replacement parts.

6) Recycle Computer Parts

If you must discard items like monitors or printers, at least take them to an electronics recycler. Staples accepts old monitors, etc. for a small fee.

7) Use Cloth Grocery Bags

While this is more of a challenge for men as they look like pocketbooks, it is important to avoid bringing home so many plastic bags. Cloth bags can help. Some shoppers at the farmers market seem afraid to let any vegetables touch any other vegetables, insisting that each be individually wrapped. A better method is to use as few bags as possible, to reuse those taken, recycle them when they tear, and especially to avoid using them to begin with by bringing your own bag. Eventually this will save money as stores are considering charging for them.

8)Do Sweat the Small Stuff
The worst pieces of plastic are the tiny bits. These are the ones that birds, turtles and fish mistake for food and eat and then can’t pass them. Eventually these poor animals become full of plastic and they die of starvation, or they are consumed by larger animals and the process continues. After these animals die, the plastic is the only part that is left behind where it kills again.

9)Don’t be a Litter Bug
Many feel that if they don’t litter, they will be putting the garbage man out of a job. Some will simply chuck their used car batteries (full of sulfuric acid) into the woods behind their home. The truth is that this debris will persist for decades and humans leave enough of a footprint without adding insult to injury. In the 1970’s there were TV commercials with Woodsy Owl reminding us to “Give a Hoot Don’t Pollute”. In today’s corporate controlled media the best we get is talk about the Carbon Tax. Even the threat of Nuclear War is brushed aside by the media in favor of the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Manners.

10)Clean up your Neighborhood Ponds
Many neighborhoods have small ponds containing water that is cleaner than their municipal tap water. These ponds are often teeming with fish and turtles that help keep them pure. Sadly however these ponds (and wildlife) are normally loaded with plastic debris. By taking 15 minutes each week, one person can really help clean up their neighborhood. The process is surprisingly relaxing and the animals will appreciate it. Do note that random passerby will think you are out on parole, so wearing an orange jumpsuit is not recommended. Ideally, organize a neighborhood trash pickup (nowadays that may require legal waivers in case participants obtain a boo boo).

References

GPGP Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Paci…

Plastic grades:
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/108/plastic

Related posts:

1. 10 Ways to Reduce Plastic Consumption
2. 3.5 Million Tons of Plastic Floating in the Pacific

Rising energy prices are on course to net the government a windfall of over £1bn thanks to a little-known scheme designed to promote the development of renewable energy.

The disclosure of the substantial sums made through the scheme comes as Gordon Brown has been piling pressure on power companies to plough some of the profits they have made through increased prices into helping cash-strapped consumers.

The government has faced backbench calls to impose a windfall tax on energy firms and has been criticised for rejecting plans for a one-off cash payment to householders to help pay for steep increases in fuel bills.

But after the Guardian revealed details of the government’s own sizable profits through energy sales last night, there were calls for the windfall sums to be used to reduce householders’ energy bills.

The government profits come from a scheme set up in the 1980s to support renewable energy projects by guaranteeing to pay developers building wind, biomass and other non-fossil fuel generation plants a fixed price for their electricity for 15 years.

During the first decade of the so-called Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation scheme, it ran at a loss, paid for by consumers, but over the last six years rising electricity prices have allowed the government to cash in on the energy contracts at a substantial profit.

In total ministers have now taken payments of £585m out of the fund, and have another £218m in the scheme’s account, which is held by the energy regulator, Ofgem.

This year the scheme is expected to make £200m, or more than £7 for every household in the UK.

Last night Charles Hendry, the Conservative shadow energy minister, accused the government of using the scheme as a “stealth tax” and warned it would further damage public confidence in environmental measures.

“If you’re going to tax environmental issues that money should be used for very specific projects for [the] environment, or else to help reduce taxes on families, but this seems to be going into a general pot,” said Hendry. “Certainly it would be in the spirit of it if the money was being used to deal with insulation and energy conservation.”

Energy companies have also complained about the government taking money which they feel should be paid back to customers or used to support new renewable energy.

“The money that’s accumulated was collected with the purpose of achieving environmental ends, and in this regard particularly achieving renewable energy targets, so we think it should be used for that purpose,” said Laura Schmidt, spokeswoman for the Association of Electricity Producers.

The Renewable Energy Association said: “That money is effectively raised for renewables and it isn’t right it should be used not for renewables.”

The government is expected to announce a package of measures next week under which power companies will agree to help impove the energy efficiency of poorer households but it is likley to face difficult questions over why it is not using some of its own energy windfall to help the fuel poor.

Ed Matthew, part of a powerful coalition of lobby groups which will publish a charter on fuel poverty on Monday, said the government’s windfall should be spent on speeding up work to improve insulation in the poorest homes “over and above” what is already planned.

“This is a question of life and death: 20,000 to 40,000 people die every year because of cold in this country, and energy efficiency is the only permanent solution,” said Matthew, head of UK climate for Friends of the Earth. “Huge investment is required and the money has to come partly from companies and it has to come directly from government itself if we’re going to get anywhere close to the kind of investment required to solve the problem.”

Related posts:

1. Why can’t energy firms pick up the bill?
2. Karachi, Pakistan in large-scale power

What are Americans supposed to eat?

Unfortunately, lettuce and milk weren’t the only foods that were found to be contaminated. Perchlorate was found in tomatoes, carrots, cucumbers, spinach, citrus, melons and more. Sadly, even organic vegetables were affected, because most crops are irrigated from polluted water sources. In a Wired.com article by Amit Asaravala, Bill Walker, the vice president of the Environmental Working Group’s West Coast operations, was quoted as saying, “The study confirms what we and some other people have been saying for a while — that perchlorate is not only a problem in areas with known water contamination but for anyone who eats food grown in the U.S.”

A report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) warns that ingesting lettuce or any other vegetable that is grown anywhere irrigated by the Colorado River would result in an exposure to an unsafe level of perchlorate per standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Farms that use this water for irrigation are responsible for growing almost all of the lettuce sold in the United States during the winter months. The EWG also reports that if a pregnant woman were to eat an ordinary serving of vegetables with the contamination levels that were found at Lucky Farms, a San Bernardino grower of lettuce and other vegetables, she would get a dose of rocket fuel over 100 times greater than what the EPA would consider “safe” for a liter of drinking water. Wow! Health-conscious consumers who eat a plant-based diet consisting of lots of dark, leafy greens, fruits and vegetables could actually be harming their health by consuming toxic levels of perchlorate.

Health Implications

According to a website by Laura Power, MS, PhD, LDN, perchlorate is a toxin that interferes with thyroid function by supplanting iodine in the body, causing harm to iodine transporters. This can be responsible for numerous health problems, notes Dr. Power, including “hypothyroidism, thyroid cancer, goiter, breast disease, disruption of the menstrual cycle, immune system dysfunction, poor fetal development, and mental retardation of newborns.” A book by Mary J. Shomon, Living Well with Hypothyroidism: What Your Doctor Doesn’t Tell You… That You Need to Know (Revised Edition), reports that in areas with the greatest amount of perchlorate contamination, rates of congenital hypothyroidism are much higher than normal which means that pregnant mothers need to be particularly concerned about this.

To illustrate the severity of the problem, a CDC study demonstrated that in the 36% of women in the U.S. with low iodine intake, just about any exposure to perchlorate at all was associated with a substantial change in levels of thyroid hormone. That’s over one in three women. Moreover, the Organic Consumers Association reports that for every one out of ten of these women, if they were exposed to as little as 5 ppb of perchlorate in drinking water, the subsequent hormone disruption would require treatment during pregnancy for sub-clinical hypothyroidism.

Fatigued, Depressed, and Overweight?

If a woman is overly fatigued, depressed or overweight, she may be suffering from hypothyroidism caused by perchlorate contamination. According to Dr. Power, there are many other symptoms of hypothyroidism such as brittle nails, poor memory, constipation, menstrual irregularities, high cholesterol, poor concentration, irritability, dry skin, dry hair, hair loss and more. Imagine how frustrating it might be for a woman who is drinking lots of water and eating lots of healthy salads but isn’t making any progress losing weight due to thyroid disease caused by perchlorate ingestion. Clearly, anyone who has the above symptoms should consult a qualified health care provider immediately.

Check the Water Supply

One thing everyone can do is to check their water supplies. A map provided by the EPA shows the location of all of the perchlorate releases as of April 2003. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) also provides a table of where top soil or ground water is contaminated by perchlorate and a table that shows sites of known perchlorate use in 36 states. As previously noted, many who live near the Colorado River are affected (about 20 million people).

Install a Water Filter

Those who live in areas that have been contaminated should definitely install a water filter capable of removing perchlorate, probably some type of reverse osmosis filter. These filters won’t remove all of the perchlorate, but it is best to reduce the amount of perchlorate to the extent possible. Reverse osmosis filters won’t remove things like radon from the water and are probably best combined with a carbon filter. Needless to say, those with children attending schools that use water contaminated with perchlorate should take action to demand that the schools install proper filters, too, as drinking perchlorate-contaminated water could cause developmental delays in children, according to Dr. Power.

Get Sufficient Iodine

Unfortunately, there is no way to remove perchlorate from contaminated vegetables, and buying organic produce doesn’t help when it comes to perchlorate. One can try to purchase vegetables that aren’t grown in areas that use contaminated water to irrigate crops, but this probably won’t be possible for the majority of people. Obviously, people can’t stop eating. However, it is absolutely essential to ensure that one’s diet has a sufficient amount of iodine to attempt to compensate for any perchlorate ingestion. Some people may wish to supplement with kelp or eat more sea vegetables, but it is best to discuss the proper dosage of any supplements with a qualified healthcare provider.

Write and Complain

Finally, one more thing that can be done is to write to lawmakers and demand that the people who are polluting the environment with perchlorate clean it up now. A number of people in some communities in California that have water that has been poisoned by perchlorate are being charged 15% surcharges to clean up the mess made by polluters, reports The Gilroy Dispatch. This is so wrong. According to Senator Feinstein from California, “Nearly all perchlorate has been produced by the Department of Defense and its contractors and in the country’s space programs.” Maybe everyone should write to NASA and The Department of Defense and complain, too.

The EPA has not established a maximum legal limit in tap water for perchlorate, according to a database maintained by the EWG. This is outrageous –- there are millions of people in the United States drinking water that has been contaminated with this toxin. Since perchlorate is currently unregulated in tap water, there are no violations recorded in the EPA’s violations database, ironically labeled the “Safe Drinking Water Information System.” Meanwhile, under the current federal tap water law, any level of perchlorate is legal! That’s right. Water suppliers are not even required to test for perchlorate. Given the health implications of perchlorate ingestion, the stupidity of this kind of lack of regulation is just incredible. Write to the EPA, and let them know that this lack of regulation is just insanity.

A Wake-up Call

When people have to be concerned with drinking a glass of water or eating a salad, there is a problem. The FDA reports that the inhibition of iodine uptake by perchlorate is a “precursor that can lead to hypothyroidism,” and pregnant women and their fetuses are “the most sensitive populations to the health effects of perchlorate.” How bad will the situation have to get before environmental regulators will no longer be able to ignore the mass poisoning of the nation’s food and water supply?

Contact Information

Contact The Environmental Protection Agency:

Mailing address:
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4601)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0003

Phone and Fax:
Phone: 202-564-3750
Fax: 202-564-3753 (Director’s office)
Fax: 202-564-3751 (Drinking Water Protection Division)
Fax: 202-564-3752 (Standards and Risk Management Division)

or e-mail the Director, Cynthia Dougherty @ Dougherty.Cynthia@epa.gov

Contact the FDA:

Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857

or by telephone:

1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) — main FDA Phone Number (for general inquiries)

Contact local, state and federal officials - just enter zip code:

(http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/)

Contact the Department of Defense:

(http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html)
or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1

Contact NASA:

((http://www.nasa.gov/about/contact/ask_n…)

Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)

Related posts:

1. Drug traces found in U.S. water supply
2. What’s on Tap and What You Need to Know About Drinking Water

If you want a glimpse of how the movement against climate change could crumble faster than a summer snowflake, read Ewa Jasiewicz’s article, published yesterday on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site(1). It is a fine example of the identity politics that plagued direct action movements during the 1990s, and from which the new generation of activists has so far been mercifully free.

Ewa rightly celebrates the leaderless, autonomous model of organising that has made this movement so effective. The two climate camps I have attended – this year and last – were among the most inspiring events I’ve ever witnessed. I am awed by the people who organised them, who managed to create, under extraordinary pressure, safe, functioning, delightful spaces in which we could debate the issues and plan the actions which thrust Heathrow and Kingsnorth into the public eye. Climate camp is a tribute to the anarchist politics that Jasiewicz supports.

But in seeking to extrapolate from this experience to a wider social plan, she makes two grave errors. The first is to confuse ends and means. She claims to want to stop global warming, but she makes that task 100 times harder by rejecting all state and corporate solutions. It seems to me that what she really wants to do is to create an anarchist utopia, and use climate change as an excuse to engineer it.

Stopping runaway climate change must take precedence over every other aim. Everyone in this movement knows that there is very little time: the window of opportunity in which we can prevent two degrees of warming is closing fast. We have to use all the resources we can lay hands on, and these must include both governments and corporations. Or perhaps she intends to build the installations required to turn the energy economy around – wind farms, wave machines, solar thermal plants in the Sahara, new grid connections and public transport systems – herself?

Her article is a terryifying example of the ability some people have to put politics first and facts second when confronting the greatest challenge humanity now faces. The facts are as follows. Runaway climate change is bearing down on us fast. We require a massive political and economic response to prevent it. Governments and corporations, whether we like it or not, currently control both money and power. Unless we manage to mobilise them, we stand a snowball’s chance in climate hell of stopping the collapse of the biosphere. Jasiewicz would ignore all these inconvenient truths because they conflict with her politics.

“Changing our sources of energy without changing our sources of economic and political power”, she asserts, “will not make a difference. Neither coal nor nuclear are the “solution”, we need a revolution.” So before we are allowed to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we must first overthrow all political structures and replace them with autonomous communities of happy campers. All this must take place within a couple of months, as there is so little time in which we could prevent two degrees of warming. This is magical thinking of the most desperate kind. If I were an executive of E.On or Exxon, I would be delighted by this political posturing, as it provides a marvellous distraction from our real aims.

To support her argument, Jasiewicz misrepresents what I said at climate camp. She claims that I “confessed not knowing where to turn next to solve the issues of how to generate the changes necessary to shift our sources of energy, production and consumption”. I confessed nothing of the kind. In my book Heat I spell out what is required to bring about a 90% cut in emissions by 2030. Instead I confessed that I don’t know how to solve the problem of capitalism without resorting to totalitarianism.

The issue is that capitalism involves lending money at interest. If you lend at 5%, then one of two things must happen. Either the money supply must increase by 5% or the velocity of circulation must increase by 5%. In either case, if this growth is not met by a concomitant increase in the supply of goods and services, it becomes inflationary and the system collapses. But a perpetual increase in the supply of goods and services will eventually destroy the biosphere. So how do we stall this process? Even when usurers were put to death and condemned to perpetual damnation, the practice couldn’t be stamped out. Only the communist states managed it, through the extreme use of the state control Ewa professes to hate. I don’t yet have an answer to this conundrum. Does she?

Yes, let us fight both corporate power and the undemocratic tendencies of the state. Yes, let us try to crack the problem of capitalism and then fight for a different system. But let us not confuse this task with the immediate need to stop two degrees of warming, or allow it to interfere with the carbon cuts that have to begin now.

Ewa’s second grave error is to imagine that society could be turned into a giant climate camp. Anarchism is a great means of organising a self-elected community of like-minded people. It is a disastrous means of organising a planet. Most anarchists envisage their system as the means by which the oppressed can free themselves from persecution. But if everyone is to be free from the coercive power of the state, this must apply to the oppressors as well as the oppressed. The richest and most powerful communities on earth – be they geographical communities or communities of interest – will be as unrestrained by external forces as the poorest and weakest. As a friend of mine put it, “when the anarchist utopia arrives, the first thing that will happen is that every Daily Mail reader in the country will pick up a gun and go and kill the nearest hippy.”

This is why, though both sides furiously deny it, the outcome of both market fundamentalism and anarchism, if applied universally, is identical. The anarchists associate with the oppressed, the market fundamentalists with the oppressors. But by eliminating the state, both remove such restraints as prevent the strong from crushing the weak. Ours is not a choice between government and no government. It is a choice between government and the mafia.

Over the past year I have been working with groups of climate protesters who have changed my view of what could be achieved. Most of them are under 30, and they bring to this issue a clear-headedness and pragmatism that I have never encountered in direct action movements before. They are prepared to take extraordinary risks to try to defend the biosphere from the corporations, governments and social trends which threaten to make it uninhabitable. They do so for one reason only: that they love the world and fear for its future. It would be a tragedy if, through the efforts of people like Ewa, they were to be diverted from this urgent task into the identity politics that have wrecked so many movements.

Related posts:

1. Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate change plan
2. Wolfowitz ‘tried to censor World Bank on climate change’

IPS | “Obesity is a much bigger problem than undernourishment,” said Professor Jan Lundqvist of the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI).

He pointed out that there are 850 million people worldwide who suffer from hunger and starvation daily compared with over 1.2 billion people who are overweight and obese, which can lead to a vast range of health problems like diabetes and heart disease.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Stockholm International Water Conference, Lundqvist told reporters Thursday that “improving water productivity and reducing the quantity of food wasted can enable us to provide a better diet for the poor and enough food for growing populations.”

A study titled “Saving Water” released here argues that while the risk of under-nourishment is reduced with an increasing supply of food — provided access is ensured — the risk of over-eating and wastage is also likely to increase when food becomes more abundant in some societies.

In the United States, as much as 30 percent of food products, worth some 48.3 billion dollars, is thrown away annually just by households alone.

“That’s like leaving the tap running and pouring 40 trillion litres of water into the garbage can — enough water to meet the household needs of 500 million people,” says the report co-authored by SIWI, along with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Rome and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Sri Lanka.

The study also says that wasted food is wasted water because of the large quantum of water that goes into the cultivation and processing of food.

Professor John Anthony Allan of King’s College, London, the winner of the 2008 Stockholm Water Prize, is the author of a concept called “virtual water” where he argues that people consume water not only when they drink it or take a shower but also when they consume food products.

The virtual water concept measures water embedded in the production and trade of food and consumer products– from the field and the factory to the dinner table.

A cup of coffee, for example, accounts for about 140 litres of water that is used in growing, producing, packaging and shipping the beans.

One single hamburger accounts for an estimated 2,400 litres of water; one kilogramme of beef consumes 15,000 litres of water; a slice of white bread takes in 40 litres of water; and one kilogramme of cheese absorbs 5,000 litres of water.

“I was very surprised with the high numbers. But it catches everybody’s attention,” Allan told IPS. The figures, he said, were worked out scientifically by researchers in the Netherlands.

Asked whether there was a direct link between water and food scarcities, he said while there is a shortage of food in some parts of the world, there is also a need for twice as much food in other parts of the world.

“So, there is a distribution problem. But this also reflects the maldistribution of water,” he said.

Charlotte de Fraiture, a researcher at IWMI, says that as much as half of the water used to grow food globally may be lost or wasted.

“Curbing these losses and improving water productivity provides win-win opportunities for farmers, business, ecosystems, and the global hungry,” she said.

And an effective water-saving strategy requires that minimising food wastage is firmly placed on the political agenda, she added.

SIWI says a 50 percent reduction of losses and wastage in the production and consumption chain is a necessary and achievable goal.

Meanwhile, a report released by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) says that while each person in Britain drinks, hoses, flushes and washes their way through around 150 litres of water a day, they consume about 30 times as much in “virtual water” embedded in food, clothes and other items — the equivalent of about 58 bathtubs full of water every day.

Titled “UK Water Footprint: The impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on global water resources”, the study released here points out that Britain is the world’s sixth largest importer of water.

“Only 38 percent of UK’s total water use comes from its own rivers, lakes and groundwater reserves,” Stuart Orr, WWF-UK’s water footprint expert said.

The rest, he said, is taken from water bodies in many countries across the world to irrigate and process food and fibre crops that people in Britain subsequently consume.

He said that WWF is encouraging some of the largest companies in Britain to evaluate their water footprints, which assesses the amount of water a business uses both directly and indirectly through its supply chain.

According to WWF, a single tomato from Morocco takes 13 litres of water to grow, while a shirt made from cotton grown in Pakistan or Uzbekistan soaks up 2,700 litres of water.

Orr said most consumers aren’t even aware that it takes massive amounts of water to grow the food and fibres consumed — on top of what is used for drinking, washing and watering the lawn.

“Therefore, it is essential that business and government identify the areas that could potentially suffer water crises and develop solutions so the environment is not over-exploited to the point that people and wildlife lose out,” Orr added.

Related posts:

1. U.S. Food and Water Supply Poisoned by Perchlorate
2. SALT WATER AS FUEL, Energy from tap water- whatever next? Why use dirty oil?

Although the bee die offs that have occurred recently are more severe, there have been many in the past from the same and similar products. In North Dakota, a lawsuit is pending against Bayer for the loss of their bees in 1995, the result of spraying rapeseed with Imidacloprid. In 1999, the same product was banned in France for use as a seed dressing for sunflowers when they lost one-third of their hives after widespread spraying. In 2004, it was banned for use on corn. Recently, France refused to approve Bayer’s request to sell Clothianidin.

Clothianidin and Imidacloprid are both members of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. They are well known as insect neurotoxins, especially with regard to bees. The spokesperson for the Coalition Against Bayer Dangers, based in Germany, stated, “We have been pointing out the risks of neonicotinoids for almost 10 years now. This proves without a doubt that the chemicals can come into contact with bees and kill them. These pesticides shouldn’t be on the market.”

Not a Surprise

That neonicotinoids are potent neurotoxins, especially in insects, is unsurprising. They were developed for precisely that purpose. Bayer says that their use is safe for bees, when used according to instructions. This involves using a glue that keeps the pesticides stuck to the seeds on which they’re used.

There are many problems with this. Agribusiness corporations are known to evade anything that costs them money. The glue costs money. The equipment and personnel required to apply it costs money. More careful pesticide application to try to keep it from becoming airborne costs money. Obviously, both unscrupulous agribusiness farmers and unknowing small farmers — not to mention home gardeners — will, at least occasionally, not use the glue.

Even then, it’s impossible to believe that a fair amount of these pesticides won’t become airborne. Further, their residue will poison the soil. It will be passed on into foods, which means that insects will come into contact with it there.

Pharmaceutical Connection

Isn’t it interesting that a major pharmaceutical manufacturer, Bayer, also makes a product that is a poison by design? Bayer is not an exception. Many, if not most, do business in both arenas. That alone should give pause for thought.

Here’s a list of corporations — not expected to be complete — that profit in both pharmaceuticals and pesticides:

* American Home Products

* AMVAC

* Astra Zeneca

* Aventis

* BASF

* Bayer

* Dow Chemical

* Dupont Chemical

* Merck

* Monsanto

* Novartis

* Pharmacia

Is it an accident that most of Big Pharma also manufactures pesticides? Is there a connection between the two types of products? Do the pharmaceutical arms of these corporations profit on the illness caused by the pesticide arms? These questions are rhetorical. We’ll let the reader decide.

Mythical Disease

Mike Adams has humorously shown with his Disease-Mongering Engine ((http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-mong…), which creates new diseases at the push of a mouse button, how easily phony diseases can be created to sell pharmaceuticals and fatten the pocketbooks of the medical world. The same technique has been used to cloak massive bee die-offs with an air of mystery.

Colony Collapse Disorder is a false name that serves to mislead the public into believing that there’s a new, mystery disorder, probably something very complex, that needs tons of money to be thrown at it so that every possible angle can be studied. The reason is simple. By misdirecting the public, and apparently many professionals too, the real reason for bee die-offs is obscured.

This is very much like the misleading pseudoscience that supposedly debunks global climate change by giving a false impression that there is no consensus among scientists. By stirring pesticides into a mix of other supposedly possible causes, such as bacterial infections, fungal infections, and environmental stress, a false controversy is created. That results in precious time being wasted, while we really do move into a world without bees. At the same time, money is being thrown at scientists, who should know better, but being just as human as the rest of us, they’re tempted.

Eventually, the real cause starts to become obvious, as is happening now in bee die-offs. However, the guilty party, the one making obscene profits by selling neurotoxic poisons that destroy the earth, launches a campaign of disingenuous lies, misdirection, and lawsuits to continue to sell their contaminants as long as possible.

Meanwhile, we’re being told that we must prepare to live in a world without bees, as if it’s inevitable. All because of Colony Collapse Disorder, a cleverly marketed nonexistent disease. We live in fear of the implications of no bees, when the real threat is poisons manufactured for the sole benefit of obscene profits.

How to Avoid These Pesticides

Neonicotinoids are used in agribusiness and home gardens. To help the reader avoid these products, we are providing their generic names, along with as many brand names as could be found.

The neonicotinoids include: acetamiprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam.

Acetamiprid and dinotefuran are manufactured by many companies. Thiamethoxam is made by Syngenta. Only Bayer makes clothianidin and imidacloprid.

Brand names for imidacloprid include: Kohinor, Admire, Advantage, Gaucho, Merit, Confidor, Hachikusan, Premise, Prothor, and Winner.

Brand names for clothianidin include: Gaucho, Titan, Clutch, Belay, Arena.

Brand names for acetamiprid include: Assail, Intruder, Adjust.

Brand names for thiacloprid include: Calypso.

Brand names for thiamethoxam include: Actara, Cruiser, Helix, Platinum, Centric.

References

Guardian, “Pesticides: Germany bans chemicals linked to honeybee devastation”, by Alison Benjamin, ((http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2…)

Wikipedia, “Imidacloprid”, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid)

University of Florida, “Insect Management on Landscape Plants”, (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IG013)

Crop Protection Monthly, 31 January 2002, Issue 146, ((http://www.crop-protection-monthly.co.u…)

“Poison for Profit — What A Business Plan!”, by Ashley Simmons Hotz

Institute of Science in Society, “Requiem for the Honeybee”, by Professor Joe Cummins

Related posts:

1. The Bees Die…The Planet Dies
2. Bush Administration Sued for Allowing Use of Pesticides

But while the new ruling exposes some of the channel’s practices, it also exposes the limitations of the regulator. The programme was peppered with distortions and misleading claims. But despite being presented with a vast dossier of evidence by climate scientists, Ofcom decided that it could not rule on the matter of accuracy. While news programmes are expected to be accurate, other factual programmes are not, and Ofcom “only regulates misleading material where that material is likely to cause harm or offence.” It decided that The Great Global Warming Swindle hadn’t caused actual harm to members of the public and would not rule on whether or not the programme had misled them. In fact, it is precisely because “the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast”, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy, that a programme claiming it is all a pack of lies could slip past the partiality rules. The greater a programme’s defiance of scientific fact, the less likely Ofcom is to rule against it. This paradoxical judgement allows Channel 4 to keep getting away with it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is part of a long-standing pattern. Channel 4 upsets all sorts of people, and it has every right to do so. On all other issues it appears to do so in a random fashion, sometimes attacking people on one side of the debate, sometimes on the other. But one polemical position has kept recurring over the past 18 years: a fierce antagonism towards environmentalism. Some of these programmes have used misrepresentation, distortion or fabrication to sustain claims that environmental concerns are the fantasies of self-serving scientists. It is arguable that no organisation in the United Kingdom has done more to damage the effort to protect the environment.

For the first eight years of the channel’s life, its coverage of environmental issues was broad, diverse and often stimulating. It broadcast 20 programmes a year in its Fragile Earth slot. But two years after Michael Grade became chief executive, its programming began to change. The trend continued after he left.

In 1990 Channel 4 screened a documentary called The Greenhouse Conspiracy, directed by Hilary Lawson at the company TVF. It maintained that “there is no evidence at all” for dangerous climate change. There is a conspiracy among scientists, it said, to talk up the dangers in order to win funding(3). No reasonable person would dispute that Channel 4 should show countervailing views, or would claim that it has an obligation to take an environmentalist line. But there were three problems with this programme, which appear to characterise several of the channel’s films about the environment.

The first is that it was billed as a science documentary, rather than a one-sided polemic. It had an anonymous and authoritative voiceover, rather than the onscreen presenter you would expect to see in a polemical film. It presented as hard fact statements that were extremely contentious and often plain wrong. The second is that contributors’ commercial interests were not mentioned. The third problem is that though the majority of scientific opinion was at odds with the line the programme took, the opposing point of view was scarcely represented. The contribution of a very eminent climate scientist was edited to make him seem like an inconsistent crank, while maverick outsiders were presented as the voices of scientific orthodoxy.

But this film became a template for the channel’s environmental coverage over much of the following 17 years. Its most prominent films about the environment screened in this period took the same line as The Greenhouse Conspiracy, which created the impression that environmental problems do not exist and that environmental scientists are mendacious fanatics.

In 1997 Channel 4 broadcast a series across three hours of prime time on Sunday evenings, called Against Nature. Made by Martin Durkin, then working for the production company RDF, it claimed that the greens are modern-day Nazis who have been “needlessly consigning millions of people in the Third World to poverty and early death”. The programme’s publicity stated that it “highlights the absence of scientific rigour behind notions like the greenhouse effect and global warming”, yet the series made the most elementary scientific blunders, describing sulphur dioxide as a greenhouse gas and the oceans as the major net source of carbon dioxide.

Like The Greenhouse Conspiracy, Against Nature was billed as a science programme, rather than a polemic. It had no onscreen presenter. It amplified the credentials of some of its contributors and failed to reveal that some were funded by fossil fuel industries. The programme makers duped and misrepresented the environmentalists they featured. This series was subject to one of the most damning verdicts that Ofcom’s predecessor, the Independent Television Commission, has ever handed down.

None of this, or subsequent distortions, stopped the channel from continuing to pay Martin Durkin to pursue what looks like a personal crusade against science. In 1998, he hired a research biochemist and TV researcher called Najma Kazi to help him with a film for Equinox called Storm in a D-Cup claiming that breast implants are completely safe. After two weeks she walked out. “It’s not a joke to walk away from four or five month’s work,” she told me, “but my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that’s not the case. I don’t know how that programme got passed.”(4) In 2000, he made another film – a 90-minute special – for Equinox about genetic engineering. He interviewed the environmentalist Dr Mae-Wan Ho. “I feel completely betrayed and misled”, she said. “They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.”(5) Neither of these programmes, however, was criticised by the regulators.

During this period, Channel 4 broadcast several environmental programmes which were vicious and grossly unbalanced denunciations of environmental science. But, as independent film makers I have spoken to testify, proposals for programmes which expressed concern about the environment were rejected out of hand. When I went to speak to the man who was then the director of programmes, Tim Gardam, to ask why the channel seemed so hostile to the environment, he told me something that shocked me more than any defensive statement. “I don’t know what’s important any more”.

The list of environmental programmes Channel 4 has sent me shows a sharp reduction in output during the years 1992 to 2006(6). But in mid-2006 I was told by an executive that the channel had realised it had been misled by people who were sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. It seemed as if the dam had broken. Channel 4’s new commissions suggested that it was at last beginning to wake up to the fact that environmental issues were not just the crazy fantasy of a group of green fascists. That was until March 2007, when The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast, backed by a massive promotional campaign. The director, yet again, was Martin Durkin, and once more he was given 90 minutes of prime time.

The first thing I noticed about the Great Global Warming Swindle is how similar it is to The Greenhouse Conspiracy, broadcast 17 years before. The two programmes made the same claims, using some of the same contributors. They were now a little greyer and fatter, but they repeated their line almost verbatim. A vast accumulation of evidence in the intervening years, contradicting the programme’s thesis, was ignored – it appeared that very little had changed since 1990. Indeed much of the distortion in the programme involved the freezing of timelines at points convenient to his argument, producing a misleading impression of current evidence.

Some of the graphs Martin Durkin used in the programme, for example, seem to have been altered, changing the historical record. A graph of 20th Century temperatures was attributed in the programme to NASA. In reality it was first published by an Exxon-funded lobby group and creates the false impression that most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940, after which there was a sharp fall(7). The data it used ended in the mid-1980s. On Durkin’s version however, the timeline was extended to 2005 – the change of dates on the graph appeared to support his argument. Following complaints, the dates were corrected when the programme was rebroadcast.

He used a graph of temperatures over the past millennium to make the claim that they were higher during the 12th Century than they are today. But again the timescale was altered. An arrow marked “Now” points to data which in fact end at 1975. A third graph had been mislabelled in the same way: the arrow marked “Now” points to the global temperature 108 years ago, in 1900. On a fourth graph, the film-makers altered part of a curve, thereby creating the impression that temperature has precisely tracked changes in sunspot cycles. The author of the original graph complained that the film had presented “fabricated data … as genuine” to make its case(8). In response Durkin said it was a mistake.

It would require a book to catalogue all the distortions and fabrications The Great Global Warming Swindle is alleged to have included. A complaint by a team of senior scientists – the first peer-reviewed submission ever made to Ofcom – runs to 188 pages(9). Not only did the film inflate credentials of some of the contributors; some of them appear to have been made up altogether. The climate sceptic Tim Ball, for example, was said to be a professor at the Department of Climatology in the University of Winnipeg. There is no such department and he has not held a professorship since he retired in 1996. Philip Stott, the programme claimed, is a professor at the Department of Biogeography, University of London. While he was once a Professor of Biogeography, there was no such department, and Stott retired some time ago, becoming professor emeritus. Piers Corbyn was given a doctorate he does not possess and described as a “climate forecaster”. He is in fact a weather forecaster – a very different matter – and has published no peer-reviewed papers on either topic since 1986(10). Fred Singer is said to have been the director of the US National Weather Service. In reality he was Director of the US National Weather Satellite Center.

Far from revealing its contributors’ financial interests, the film created the impression that they have taken no money from the coal or oil industry. In truth 10 of its protagonists have either been funded directly by fossil fuel companies, or have received paid employment from lobby groups funded by these companies, which campaign against taking action on climate change(11). Tim Ball claimed in the programme that “I’ve never received a nickel from the oil and gas companies.” But he has received fees from two groups which lobby against taking action on climate change – Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project – both of which receive major funding from energy companies(12). The Great Global Warming Swindle looks like free, undisclosed propaganda for coal and oil firms. Channel 4 forcefully denied this. Ofcom decided that it is “unable to assess or adjudicate on the relative merits of these strongly disputed allegations.”

The film invoked an extraordinary conspiracy theory to explain why governments have tried to tackle climate change. It began, the Swindle claimed, with the British coal miners’ strike. “The miners had brought down Ted Heath’s conservative government. Mrs Thatcher was determined the same would not happen to her. She set out to break their power … At the request of Mrs Thatcher, the UK Met Office set up a Climate Modelling Unit, which provided the basis for a new international committee called The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.” In reality, Mrs Thatcher did not make a public statement on climate change until 1988, three years after the miners’ strike ended in their defeat. The IPCC was established in the same year – not by the UK Met Office but by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN(13) – and the Climate Modelling Unit (the Hadley Centre) did not open until two years afterwards, in 1990(14).

Here too were inaccuracies of the same stamp as those which appeared in Against Nature. The Great Global Warming Swindle claimed that volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together. In truth they produce less than 1%. It maintained that “the biggest source of CO2 by far is the oceans” (they remain a net carbon sink). Sea level changes have “nothing to do with melting ice” (melting ice is in fact responsible for about 40% of the rise) and so on and so forth. One of the contributors to the Great Global Warming Swindle, Carl Wunsch, says that he was duped into appearing in the documentary and his words were “grossly distorted by context”(15). Ofcom found that Professor Wunsch had been treated unfairly in the way in which his edited interview had been presented but that his comments about CO2 in the ocean were not unfairly edited.

Perhaps the cruellest distortion perpetrated in Durkin’s programme was the claim, also carried in Against Nature, that environmentalists are condemning the poor to live without electricity and to cook their meals on smoky fires, causing millions of premature deaths from respiratory disease. The film interviewed a Kenyan official at a rural clinic, whose solar panels did not produce enough power to run both the fridge and the lights. This was apparently the fault of Western environmentalists, who had somehow obliged the clinic to use solar power, which is “at least 3 times more expensive than conventional forms of electrical generation.”

In reality, it is much cheaper to install solar panels in parts of rural Africa which do not have transmission lines than to build a new grid connection, which is probably why the clinic was using them. If they are providing insufficient power, the cheapest solution is to install more panels and batteries. The solar fridge, developed by the British environmentalist and engineer Guy Watson, has saved countless lives, as it permits vaccines and blood which would otherwise be degraded by heat to survive in even the remotest locations. Environmentalists have been amongst the most outspoken campaigners against cooking on smoky fires, partly because of the health effects, partly because they use huge amounts of wood and partly because the black carbon they produce is a cause of global warming. This was the only partiality issue on which Ofcom was prepared to rule, because it regards the treatment of the poor, by contrast to climate change, to be a “matter of major political controversy”. It decided that in this respect the programme breached its rules.

This film was presented as a dispassionate science documentary. We were not told whose opinions the anonymous narrator represented. Outrageous claims were stated as bald fact. Ofcom has decided that there is “no …requirement” to disclose the personal views of the presenter “in relation to factual programmes”. The Great Global Warming Swindle, like Against Nature, had a huge impact, persuading many people that manmade climate change is not taking place. I attended a presentation by a pollster from Ipsos Mori who showed that there had been a decline last year in the number of people who believed that global warming was a real phenomenon – primarily, she said, as a result of Durkin’s film(16). This is hardly surprising. No one unfamiliar with the channel’s record on this issue could have imagined that a public service broadcaster would have transmitted a programme containing so many distortions.

This became a personal issue when the man who commissioned The Great Global Warming Swindle, Hamish Mykura, appeared on the Today programme to defend the film. It was, he said, part of “a season of opinionated polemical films about global warming”, and was balanced by a film I had made, broadcast in the same week, for Dispatches(17). I was flabbergasted. Neither I, nor the audience, nor anyone on the production team had been told that my programme was part of “a season of opinionated polemical films about global warming”, or that it would be linked to The Great Global Warming Swindle. Had I known this, I would have pulled out. When I asked Mykura for evidence – some memos or publicity material about this “season”, for example – he was unable to provide any(18).

My film was subjected to such a rigorous process of fact-checking that it was, in effect, edited by Channel 4’s lawyers. While this made it rather dull, it also meant that it was robust and unchallengeable: any claim which would not stand up to rigorous academic scrutiny was excluded. Despite this, it was billed as a controversial polemic and my own personal view (I was the onscreen presenter). Durkin’s film, by contrast, appears to have been exempted from such rigorous fact-checking and was not presented as his opinion. Why did such radically different standards apply? And in what sense did my film “balance” Durkin’s? Mine was about policies seeking to address climate change: I was not asked to demonstrate that manmade global warming was taking place. Even if that had been my aim, Channel 4 misunderstands its public service obligations if it believes it has to strike a balance between truth and falsehood. I was glad to see that Ofcom found that the other programmes in the channel’s schedule “were not sufficiently timely or linked” to the Swindle to balance it.

The channel appears until now to have shrugged off criticism of these programmes: even, in fact, to have enjoyed it. They create “noise”, which is considered by some executives to be the thing that counts. Hamish Mykura, the man who commissioned The Great Global Warming Swindle, has since been promoted. Channel 4’s spokesman tells me “It would be wrong to suggest that Channel 4 has an agenda regarding environmental programmes. The vast majority of Channel 4’s programmes on environmental issues over the last 20 years have reflected the opinion of the majority of scientists on man-made global warming. … to the best of our knowledge, since 1990 there has been 5 ½ hours of programming giving voice to the minority of scientists who question man’s role in global warming.” This, it says, “is against the background of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] stating that there is a 90% certainty that the causes of global warming are man-made, it follows that there is a 10% uncertainty. Yet this 10% uncertainty receives a disproportionately small amount of airtime.”

I find this argument extraordinary. A 90% level of confidence doesn’t mean that 10% of the evidence suggests that an effect is not occurring – in fact there is no reliable evidence showing that manmade global warming is not taking place. It is expressed in this way because there is no absolute certainty in science. The “very high confidence” the IPCC expresses in the global warming thesis is the strongest statement any reputable scientist would make about his area of study. It is legitimate and right to stress that there can be no absolute certainty about global warming. But this is not what Channel 4 has done. The five and half hours of programmes which attack the thesis (and there have been many more which savage other aspects of environmentalism) express absolute certainty that manmade global warming isn’t happening.

So why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? I am not sure, but it seems to me that much of its programming – whether it concerns property, celebrities or contestants seeking fame and money – is aspirational. Environmentalism is counter-aspirational. It suggests that the carefree world Channel 4 has created, the celebration of the self, cannot be sustained.

It is against my interests to publish this article. I would like to continue making programmes for Channel 4. I recognise that what I have written may jeopardise this work. But these matters are far more consequential than my own employment. By broadcasting programmes that appear to manipulate and even fabricate evidence, it has impeded efforts to forestall the 21st Century’s greatest threat. For how much longer will this be allowed to continue? And for how much longer will Ofcom forbid itself to state that a programme is misleading?

George Monbiot’s book Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice is published by Guardian Books, at £10.99.

References:

1. Independent Television Commission, 1st April 1998. Channel Four to Apologise to Four Interviewees in “Against Nature” Series. Press Release.

2. Ofcom, 21st July 2008. Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 114. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf

3. You can read the transcript here: http://www.angelfire.com/dc/gaudcert/globwarm3.htm

4. Najma Kazi, pers comm.

5. Mae-Wan Ho, pers comm.

6. Channel 4, by email.

7. You can read the account of where this graph came from and much more at http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/

8. Nathan Rive and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 27th April 2007. Regarding: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, broadcast in the UK on Channel 4 on March 8, 2007. http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

9. See http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/

10. Piers Corbyn has sent me the list of his publications.

11. See http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/

12. Tim Ball, pers comm.

13. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

14. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/history/

15. http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

16. Dr Lucy Arnot, 18th October 2007. Communicate 07 conference, Bristol.

17. Hamish Mykura, 16th March 2007. The Today programme.

18. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/01/correspondence-with-hamish-my…

Related posts:

1. Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film
2. C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change