Tuesday, December 8, 2015


Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.

(#4 Feb. 12, 2014; #5 March 12, 2014; #6 April 9, 2014; #7 May 14, 2014; #8, June 11, 2014; #9 July 9, 2014; #10, August 11, 2014; #11 September 10, 2014; #12 October 8, 2014; #13, November 12, 2014; #14, December 10, 2014; #15, January 14, 2015; #16, Feb. 11, 2015; #17, March 11, 2015; #18, April 8, 2015; #19, June 10, 2015; #20, August 12, 2015; #21, September 9, 2015; #22, Oct. 14, 2015).   Thank you Marc.
190331 pageviews - 1543 posts, as of Nov 6, 2015

Veggie and Vegan Potluck
Wed    - 6:00 pm @ OMNI
A food-friendly event with delicious dishes every second Wednesday..  We want to meet you, at a place and time where you can talk with others not only about recipes, nutrition, and health, but about the meat industry monopoly, care for other species, for the environment, and the climate.     Hope to see you!

Wednesday,  DECEMBER 9, members of OMNI350 and CCL are invited to attend our potluck and enjoy vegetarian cuisine and consider our philosophy, and we are invited to attend their meeting following, which concentrates on the fee-dividend approach to reducing carbon in our atmosphere.  This newsletter especially focuses on the significant connection between vegetarianism and climate change.

  Vegetarian Potluck starts at 6, and CCL at 7.  Make a special sign or announcement if your dish is vegan.   If you wish, provide your recipe, or at least its name and main ingredients. 

See: Animal Cruelty, Animal Friendship, Animal Rights, Climate Change, CO2, Critical Thinking, Direct Violence, Education,  Empathy/Compassion, Ecology, Ethics, Gandhi, Global Warming/Causes, Health, St. Francis, Structural Violence, Torture, Vegan, Vegetarianism, Violence, Wars, Water, for starters.

Nutrition, Health
Eggland’s Advertising Claims

Animal Rights, Compassion for Animals
The Meatrix

Meat Eating Accelerates Climate Change
Chatham House,
Carrinton, Reduce Meat Consumption to Prevent 2 Degrees
Maisto, Less Meat Our Best Chance to Avert Disastrous Climate
McKnight, Vegetarianism the Real Defense against Climate Change
Anderson, If Everyone Became Vegetarian

Population Growth Accelerates Climate Change
OMNI’s Overpopulation Newsletter
Population Action International, Mogelgaard
Hymas Interviews Ehlers, Pres. of Population Action International
Joanna, Report on Condoms and Carbon Footprint of Having Kids


EGGLAND’S ADVERTISING CLAIMS, Google Search, Nov. 16, 2015

Eggland's Best is one of the leading distributors of fresh eggs. Our USDA- approved farm-fresh eggs deliver an overall better taste and superior nutrition.

Eggland's Best Cholesterol Claims Called Deceptive ...

Federal Trade Commission
Mar 13, 1996 - At issue are claims regarding the effect of Eggland's eggs on blood ...And second, the case tells other advertisers making health claims that we  ...

Aug 27, 2006 - The FTC complaint, which details the charges, cites several statements found in Eggland's national print and broadcast advertisements.

The Washington Post
Mar 14, 1996 - Eggland's Best Inc., a Pennsylvania producer of specialty eggs sold ...has settled charges that it made false advertising claims, including that  ...

Center for Media and Democracy
Jun 21, 2010 - Egg Land's Worst. By Anne Landman on ... Rose Acre also claims that their chickens are "comfortable." In reality ... False advertising? Unreal.

Advertising Age
Sep 18, 2015 - Johnson & Johnson and Eggland's Best have pulled advertising from ABC's "The View" after controversial comments by host Joy Behar about ...

Sep 17, 2015 - Two large corporations have pulled their advertising from the "The View" after an uproar over remarks on the daytime talk show that poked fun ...

Sep 17, 2015 - Johnson & Johnson and Eggland's Best are pulling ads from the ABC show. EB seems ..... Leah Remini's Surprising Claims About Suri Cruise.

Roxanne Hovland, ‎Joyce M. Wolburg, ‎Eric E. Haley - 2014 - ‎Business & Economics
Alpo had challenged superiority, exclusivity, and health claims. ... Paper Tiger Litmus Test: FTC Gets Eggland's, its First NARB Case, Advertising Age 2, 2 (Dec.

articles.dailypress.com › Collections › Low-fat Diet
Feb 1, 1993 - The issue centers around one company's claim. ... market 18 months ago, because its advertising campaign suggested Eggland eggs are lower  ...


The Meatrix Logo
·         WATCH THE FILM
·         TAKE ACTION
·         CONTACT
http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_haf.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_sxsw.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_wha.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_envi.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_na.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_oaw.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_webby.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/award_w3.png
Do you want to learn the truth about factory farming? Watch the new, updated and remastered edition of The Meahttp://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/thumb-tmRelaunched.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/thumb-tm2.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/thumb-tm1half.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/thumb-tm1.png http://www.themeatrix.com/assets/images/thumb-trailer.png

·         CONTACT          ABOUT


PBS Newshour, Dec. 1, “Carbon Hoofprint.”

The program opens by indicting carnivorism as a major cause of CO2/Warming/Climate Change, but most of the program presents a debate between two beef ranchers, one promoting “humane” feed lots, the other free range meat, the conclusion of which seemed to be draw, and anyway none of which was relevant to the catastrophe that is meat-eating..   Dick

Top of Form
Bottom of Form
HomeResearchChanging Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption
Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption
24 November 2015
Research Associate, Energy, Environment and Resources
Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources
Catherine Happer, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Glasgow
Reducing global meat consumption will be critical to keeping global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees Celsius, the main goal of the upcoming climate negotiations in Paris. Grand Central Market in Los Angeles, California, October 2015. Photo: Getty Images.ttitudes and
The problem
§  Our appetite for meat is a major driver of climate change. Reducing global meat consumption will be critical to keeping global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees Celsius. The livestock sector accounts for 15 per cent of global emissions, equivalent to exhaust emissions from all the vehicles in the world. A shift to healthier patterns of meat-eating could bring a quarter of the emissions reductions we need to keep on track for a two-degree world.
§  Global meat consumption has already reached unhealthy levels, and is on the rise. In industrialized countries, the average person is already eating twice as much meat as is deemed healthy by experts. Overconsumption is already contributing to the rise of obesity and non-communicable diseases like cancer and type-2 diabetes, and it is a growing problem: global meat consumption is set to rise by over 75 per cent by 2050.
§  Governments are missing a key opportunity for climate mitigation, trapped in a cycle of inertia. In spite of a compelling case for addressing meat consumption and shifting diets, governments fear the repercussions of intervention, while low public awareness means they feel little pressure to intervene.
Key findings
§  Public awareness of the link between diet and climate change is very low. There is a considerable awareness gap around the links between livestock, diet and climate change. While awareness-raising alone will not be sufficient to effect dietary change, it will be crucial to ensuring the efficacy of the range of government policy interventions required.
§  Governments must lead. Our research found a general belief across cultures and continents that it is the role of government to spearhead efforts to address unsustainable consumption of meat. Governments overestimate the risk of public backlash and their inaction signals to publics that the issue is unimportant or undeserving of concern.
§  The issue is complex but the message must be simple. Publics respond best to simple messages. Efforts must be made to develop meaningful, accessible and impactful messaging around the need for dietary change. The overall message remains clear: globally we should eat less meat.
§  Trusted sources are key to raising awareness. Unless disseminated and supported by trusted sources, new information that encourages shifts in meat-eating habits is likely to be met with resistance. Trust in governments varies considerably between countries, but experts are consistently seen as the most reliable source of information within a country.
§  Build the case for government intervention. A compelling evidence base which resonates with existing policy objectives such as managing healthcare costs, reducing emissions and implementing international frameworks will help mobilize policy-makers.
§  Initiate national debates about meat consumption. Increasing public awareness about the problems of overconsumption of animal products can help disrupt the cycle of inertia, thereby creating more enabling domestic circumstances and the political space for policy intervention. This is a role for governments, the media, the scientific community, civil society and responsible business.
§  Pursue comprehensive approaches. Shifting diets will require comprehensive strategies, which together will amount to more than the sum of their parts by sending a powerful signal to consumers that reducing meat consumption is beneficial and that government takes the issue seriously.
It’s Time to Put Meat on the Climate Negotiating Table
Livestock – Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption


- See more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/changing-climate-changing-diets#sthash.TYYvxNQe.dpuf


Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report


Global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport but fear of a consumer backlash is preventing action, says Chatham House report
 Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C, says report.   By Damian Carrington.   Tuesday 2 December 2014 
Curbing the world’s huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change, according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House.
The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport is the bigger contributor to global warming. 
“Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little,” said Rob Bailey, the report’s lead author. “A lot is being done on deforestation and transport, but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments or civil society to intrude into people’s lives and tell them what to eat.”
The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that dietary change can “substantially lower” emissions but there is no UN plan to achieve that.
Past calls to cut meat eating by high-profile figures, from the chief of the UN’s climate science panel to the economist Lord Stern, have been both rare and controversial. Other scientists have proposed a meat tax to curb consumption, but the report concludes that keeping meat eating to levels recommended by health authorities would not only lower emissions but also reduce heart disease and cancer. “The research does not show everyone has to be a vegetarian to limit warming to 2C, the stated objective of the world’s governments,” said Bailey.
The report builds on recent scientific studies which show that soaring meat demand in China and elsewhere could tip the world’s climate into chaos. Emissions from livestock, largely from burping cows and sheep and their manure, currently make up almost 15% of global emissions. Beef and dairy alone make up 65% of all livestock emissions.
Appetite for meat is rocketing as the global population swells and becomes more able to afford meat. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75% by 2050, and dairy 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, China alone is expected to be eating 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year.
Two recent peer-reviewed studies calculated that, without severe cuts in this trend, agricultural emissions will take up the entire world’s carbon budget by 2050, with livestock a major contributor. This would mean every other sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon, which is described as “impossible”. The Chatham House report concludes: “Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C.”
The consumer survey in the report, covering 12 nations including the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU bloc, found a link between the awareness of climate change and its impacts and the willingness to change behaviour. Acceptance that human activities cause climate change was significantly higher in China, India and Brazil than in the US, UK and Japan.
The good news, said Bailey, was that “the majority of future demand appears to be in the countries [like China and Brazil] that are the most receptive to change”. He said it was “pretty disappointing” that in developed countries, where meat and dairy eating is highest, awareness of livestock’s impact on the climate is low and willingness to change is low.
Brigitte Alarcon, sustainable food policy officer at WWF said: “Our LiveWell project has shown we can cut a quarter of our climate emissions from the European food supply chain by eating more pulses, fruit and vegetables and by reducing our meat consumption. National governments should improve food education to encourage healthy eating habits and environmental sustainability as a first step.”
A spokesman for the UK government said: “Greenhouse gas emissions from the UK agricultural industry have fallen by more than 20% since 1990. While food choices can have an impact on emissions, well managed livestock also provide many environmental benefits including supporting biodiversity.”
A separate survey by the Eating Better alliance, also published on Wednesday, shows that UK consumers are beginning to eat less meat. The YouGov poll found 20% saying they have cut the amount of meat they eat over the last year, with only 5% say they are eating more.
Prof Keith Richards, at the University of Cambridge and one of the researchers behind the two key scientific studies, said: “This is not a radical vegetarian argument; it is an argument about eating meat in sensible amounts as part of healthy, balanced diets.”


Eating Less Meat Is World's Best Chance For Timely Climate Change, Say Experts


Stuffed eggplant is a healthy, inexpensive, meatless entrée option.
Shifting the world’s reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is important, certainly. But the world’s best chance for achieving timely, disaster-averting climate change may actually be a vegetarian diet eating less meat, according to a recent report in World Watch Magazine. (While I’d happily nudge the world toward a vegetarian diet, the report authors are more measured and simply suggest diets containing less meat.)
“The entire goal of today’s international climate objectives can be achieved by replacing just one-fourth of today’s least eco-friendly food products with better alternatives,” co-author Robert Goodland, a former World Bank Group environmental advisor wrote in an April 18 blog post on the report.
A widely cited 2006 report estimated that 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions were attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs and poultry. However, analysis performed by Goodland, with co-writer Jeff Anhang, an environmental specialist at the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, found that figure to now more accurately be 51%.
Consequently, state the pair, replacing livestock products with meat alternatives would “have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations — and thus on the rate the climate is warming — than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.”
The pair describe several areas related to anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases that have been overlooked or underestimated. For example, livestock breathing. They explain:
[L]ivestock (like automobiles) are a human invention and convenience, not part of pre-human times, and a molecule of CO2 exhaled by livestock is no more natural than one from an auto tailpipe. Moreover, while over time an equilibrium of CO2may exist between the amount respired by animals and the amount photosynthesized by plants, that equilibrium has never been static. Today, tens of billions more livestock are exhaling CO2 than in preindustrial days, while Earth’s photosynthetic capacity (its capacity to keep carbon out of the atmosphere by absorbing it in plant mass) has declined sharply as forest has been cleared. (Meanwhile, of course, we add more carbon to the air by burning fossil fuels, further overwhelming the carbon-absorption system.)
The human population is expected to grow by 35% between 2006 and 2050, while livestock numbers are expected to double during the same period.
“This would make the amount of livestock-related emissions even more unacceptable than today’s perilous levels,” states the report. “It also means that an effective strategy must involved replacing livestock products with better alternatives, rather than substituting one meat product with another that has a somewhat lower carbon footprint.”
Food companies, Goodland and Anhang believe, have at least three incentives to respond to current risks in their industry. The first is that companies already suffer from disruptive climate events — floods, hurricanes, etc. — and so it’s in their best interests to not worsen the situation.
Second, they expect the demand for oil to rise to point of collapsing “many parts of today’s economy.” One way in which this will be particularly troublesome for livestock producers will be that crops grown for feed will be refocused on biofuel sources.
A third incentive is to offer “alternatives to livestock products that taste similar but are easier to cook, less expensive and healthier, and so are better than livestock products.”
Sales of just soy “analogs,” or alternatives to livestock products — such as ice cream, milk and cheese — totaled $1.9 billion in 2007. That same year, sales of U.S. meat and poultry products totaled $100 billion — which they optimistically suggest means there’s much room for growth.
“Worldwide, the market for meat and dairy analogs is potentially almost as big as the market for livestock products,” they write.
Still further motivation, they note: “Meat and dairy analog projects will not only slow climate change but also help ease the global food crisis, as it takes a much smaller quantity of crops to produce any given number of calories in the form of an analog than a livestock product.”
Plus, meat alternatives would help to alleviate the global water crisis, since livestock production uses a tremendous amount of water; it could have health and nutritional benefits; and, given that meat alternatives are more labor intensive, they would create both more jobs and more skilled jobs — while workers in the livestock industry could be retrained for jobs in meat-alternative industries.
“The case for change is no longer only a public policy or an ethical case, but is now also a business case,” write Goodland and Anhang. “We believe it is the best available business case among all industries to reverse climate change quickly.”


Want to have a real impact on climate change? Then become a vegetarian


Millennials who care about the environment should put their money where their mouths are and stop eating meat
 These cows don’t know that they’re destroying the environment. But they’re cows. What’s your excuse?
Between widespread economic disparities, population growth, unsustainable agriculture and climate change, a study partially funded by Nasa predicted that civilization as we know it could be steadily heading for a collapse within the next century – and the window to create impactful change is narrowing. That means millennials are potentially the last generation during which creating meaningful change is possible. But how do we accomplish this?
It’s time to start a dietary revolution.
Millennials represent $200bn in economic worth, and if a statistical majority of our generation become vegetarians or vegans, or at least eat significantly less meat than previous generations, we have a chance to have a real economic – and thus environmental – impact.
In 2012, there were roughly 70bn animals raised as livestock for 7.1bn people. And a study published in July by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that livestock production is among the most destructive forces driving climate change: it degrades air quality, pollutes waterways, and is the single-largest use of land.
Precisely how much livestock contributes to climate change remains up for debate: studies show numbers ranging from 18% (a 2006 UN food report) to 51% (a 2009 World Watch study). Most other studies fall somewhere in that range but, in each of them, the advice is the same: humans need to eat less meat to curb climate change and resource scarcity.
Raising animals to eat produces more greenhouse gasses (via methane and nitrous oxide) than all of the carbon dioxide excreted by automobiles, boats, planes and trains in the world combined. Over a 20-year period, methane has 86 times more climate change potential than carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide has 268 times more climate change potential, according to the 2006 UN report. Radically reducing the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere can produce discernable changes in the greenhouse gas effect within decades, while the same reductions in carbon dioxide take nearly a century.
Yes, quitting meat can reduce your carbon footprint significantly more than quitting driving.
Besides the methane and nitrous oxide released during livestock production, industrialized livestock contributes to roughly 75% of deforestation (to give animals grazing grounds and grow soybeans used in feedstock).
Raising cows, of course, has the biggest environmental impact. There are roughly 1.5bn cows raised as livestock, and they consume 45bn gallons of water and 135bn pounds of food every day,according to the documentary Cowspiracy. Comparatively, 7.1bn humansconsume roughly 5.2bn gallons of water and 21bn pounds of food daily. To put this in digestible terms, producing the meat for a one-third pound hamburger patty as much as 18,000 gallons of water depending on the farming method, according to the US government.
In comparison to chickens and pigs, cows require 28 times more land, 11 times more water and cause five times more greenhouse gasses, according to a study led by Gidon Eshel of Bard College. Looking at foods commonly found in vegetarian and vegan diets, like potatoes, rice and wheat, his report finds that, per calorie of beef, cows require 160 times more land and produce 11 times more greenhouse gases.
The resources needed – and sacrificed – to raise livestock is ridiculous; we simply need to stop breeding so many animals for slaughter. You can take all kinds of other small steps to reduce your environmental footprint: commuting to work by biking or walking, monitoring electricity usage by installing energy-efficient appliances, using less water via low-flow faucets and toilets, buying fromenvironmentally-conscious companies - but researchers argue that none of that on its own will be enough to reverse climate change. If you really want to make a difference, then look at what’s on your plate.
As Albert Einstein said, “Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” If you’re not willing to go vegetarian or vegan, even just significantly reducing the amount of meat in your diet can have an impact: for instance, instead of adhering to “meatless Mondays”, make it “meaty Mondays”, when Monday is the only day that you eat even a small portion of meat.
Putting this off for another generation – the way our parents have – just isn’t feasible. Millennials have the opportunity to use our economic power and personal choices to effect real change, and it’s our responsibility to do so.
Besides, if we don’t stop and reverse climate change, all we’ll have left to eat – if we’re lucky – is fish. Whoops – looks like we’re running out of fish, too.

Women’s rights are the right way to approach the population issue 30
Grist admin avatar badgeavatar for Lisa Hymas
by Lisa Hymas  9 Jun 2010 4:59 AM
Read More About
Suzanne EhlersSuzanne Ehlers, president of Population Action International.Suzanne Ehlers, the new 36-year-old president of Population Action International, likes to talk about "the magic of family planning."  If you give women around the world contraceptive tools and information, they'll limit the size of their families of their own free choice, and that makes their families healthier, wealthier, and better able to thrive in a climate-changed world.
PAI, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group, focuses on a "voluntary and rights-based" approach to family planning, as Ehlers describes it.  I talked to her recently to find out how the population movement intersects with the broader environmental movement and the fight against climate change.
Q. Population is a touchy and misunderstood topic. What message do you most want to get out to people on this issue?
A. I consider PAI's bread-and-butter issues to be family planning and reproductive health first and foremost, and then population.  I believe that it's a totally mainstream issue, and that it has way more support than anyone gives it credit for. We're trying to help women overseas determine their own paths and journeys -- with partners if they have one, and with children if they choose to bear them. Not using "choice" because it's such a charged word, but just giving people options and autonomy.
Q. So conservatives are more open to this message than some might think?
A. Yeah, we do find that -- particularly to the family-planning agenda.  If conservatives' core mission is to prevent abortion or reduce the need for abortion, the way to do that is to reduce unintended pregnancies, and the way to do that is by offering access to reproductive-health services and family planning. The core message of prevention and education -- that's a mainstream issue right there.
Q. It would be hard for a sane person to argue against women or couples having the tools and freedom to determine the size of their families. But if we're looking at a rising population and worrisome resource-consumption trends, is that enough? Is there a need to spread the word, of course not in a coercive way, about the potential benefits of smaller families, whether from an environmental standpoint or maybe a personal standpoint?
A. I'm glad to see that conversation is alive and well in a lot of politically diverse ways. It's not where PAI plays its strategic hand. There are 215 million women [PDF] out there who say they want access to family planning and basic contraception and don't have it. So let's work to meet their needs. I really trust women to take care of it themselves. You find that in [developing] countries when you give people access to education and services, they achieve kind of the same thing that you've just described. They do tend to have smaller families, they do want to see all of their children go through school, they do absolutely put a priority on girls' education, and the woman in the family does often return to work and engage in the professional sphere. It's the magic of family planning. We in the West take for granted these options and this autonomy, and we forget all that flows out of it.
I think of myself. I'm 36 and I'm nine-and-a-half-months pregnant with my second child; I obviously delayed childbearing. If I had started having kids when I became sexually active in my late teens and early twenties, God knows how many children I would have by now. I certainly wouldn't have the career that I have. I was able to delay childbearing until I was in a partnership that I felt well-supported in and we decided together that this was something that we wanted to pursue, as opposed to this kind of reproductive destiny that many women around the world feel beholden to. The only reason I enjoy [parenthood] as much as I do is because it was totally my choice -- a choice I was ready for, a choice I could afford, a choice that I had a partner with whom I could pursue it.  It has certainly enhanced my life in untold ways, but it's not singularly what I'm about, and it's not singularly what most women in the world want to be about.
So when people ask me, "How did you get where you got? Good mentor? Maybe you went to Cornell?" I'm like, "All that's fine, but I had the Pill. I didn't have kids when I was 19." Having my first child absolutely convinced me that the work I do is the mission I'm dedicated to for the rest of my life.
Q. Do you feel like the population movement is part of the broader environmental movement?
A. I guess that depends on how you slice it. Do we have incredibly supportive and positive partners within the broader mainstream environmental movement? Absolutely. A lot of groups who get it, a lot of groups who have dedicated part-time or full-time staff positions to interfacing and liaising with our reproductive-health community because the issues are so intertwined.
Q. What groups do you collaborate with?
A. The Sierra Club, Audubon, Izaak Walton League, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International in the past -- some really great groups who have sent staff on a regular basis to monthly meetings of the International Family Planning Coalition, an umbrella group that PAI hosts. I don't think that we're the top priority of any environmental group, nor probably should we be, given that we have our own movement.
There are some groups who are much more comfortable taking on a pure population-growth argument, and then there are those who are very clear about a rights agenda and are interested in justice from an environmental lens, so as a piece of that, they are interested in justice from a women's-health lens.  It's fun when you have those synergies, where you're both really out for protecting the world's most marginalized, and somebody's coming at it from a sustainable-forestry perspective, and you're coming at it from a basic reproductive-health-supplies perspective, and you've got such a broad area of overlap -- I think that's the some of the best work of the movement when that happens.
Q. How would you describe the link between population growth and climate change?
A. I think the most important way that we've pursued in recent years has been on the adaptation side of climate change.  We're seeing huge environmental devastation, and it typically hits hardest those who are most vulnerable and least able to adapt to change, which are the poor and most often women and their families. I go back to the 215 million with unmet need. If you give people access to the services they have said they already desire, you make their families healthier, you therefore make their families wealthier, you make them better able to adapt to the impacts of climate change, they're more resilient, they're less vulnerable.
The more complicated side of the two issues' intersection is mitigation.  People, including PAI, have been doing new modeling around population growth and climate-change mitigation, and I think it's a very important area of inquiry. I just think we have much lower-hanging fruit on the adaptation side of the equation that we haven't fully taken advantage of yet.
Q. That's interesting. I would assume that what you would talk about most is that if you give women the power to control their own fertility, many of them will have fewer children and you would have fewer people contributing to the climate problem.
A. Where the science is sort of lacking right now, and what we're hoping to contribute to, is how much of an impact that will really make overall in climate-change mitigation efforts. I don't disagree that if you meet the need that those 215 million women say they have, that that would result in perhaps an overall slowing. You have to think of population growth and demographics as a fast-moving machine with a lot of momentum. It takes some time for us globally to start to experience a slowdown, or different kinds of projections of where population growth might head.
Q. You called for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to seriously consider appointing a woman as the new head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and he did. What kind of new perspective do you hope that Christiana Figueres might bring to the job?
A. I think the fact that she hails from the global South is great, I think it's an important perspective. [Figueres is from Costa Rica.] Of course, it's not guaranteed that she would promote the needs and rights of women above all else. We do trust that a woman brings a different gender perspective to decision-making tables, and that's what we're hoping could yield better results for the world's most poor and vulnerable, who are for the most part women. But time will tell if it will all add up.
Q. It's looking highly unlikely that we will get a real climate treaty out of the next big U.N. climate meeting in Cancun in December. But what would you want out of one, in relation to family planning and women's rights, or what still might be achievable without a treaty?
A. This may sound relatively simplistic and fundamental, and it is: We want to get more attention paid to the issues of population and family planning within the larger debate, and an appreciation for what I would consider to be cost-effective intervention on behalf of women's health. Openness wherever mechanisms are developed or created, or a mandate for how some of the new financing will be made available. I hope I'm not setting the bar too low for us, but I know what a complicated process the UNFCCC is. I saw what happened in Copenhagen……... 

I really appreciate the content and tone of this article so I am sharing it with all of you.   http://www.alternet.org/story/142709/can_condoms_save_us_from_climate_change
Can Condoms Save Us from Climate Change?
The greenest technology available to us may not be solar panels, but instead contraception, according to a new report.
September 19, 2009  |  
What's the greenest technology we have? It may not be electric cars or solar panels but actually good old fashioned contraception.
According to a new report from the London School of Economics and commissioned by Optimum Population Trust (OPT), using contraception to fight climate change saves nearly five times as much money as your typical low-carbon technology. Carbon credits for condoms, anyone?
Quite logically, fewer children means less carbon emissions (and less strain on diminishing natural resources). Environmentalists concerned with population growth have been saying as much for decades (or centuries if you go back to Thomas Malthus). But the report, "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost," breaks down the numbers.
The study looks at what would happen if all the "unmet need" for family planning was addressed. "Unmet need" is defined as women who want access to contraception but don't currently have it.
"One recent estimate put this figure at 200 million," OPT reported. "U.N. data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 percent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion, to 8.64 billion. Between 2010 and 2050, 12 billion fewer 'people-years' would be lived -- 326 billion against 338 billion under current projections."
If this doesn't sound like a lot -- here's how it actually breaks down by carbon dioxide and dollars:
"The 34 gigatons of CO2 saved in this way would cost $220 billion -- roughly $7 a ton. However, the same CO2 savings would cost over $1 trillion if low-carbon technologies were used," OPT wrote. "The $7 cost of abating a ton of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar, $57-$83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles." That's a heck of a lot of savings.
And the carbon and cost savings could be even greater. "Unmet need" considers only couples who are married, but the United Nations Population Fund points out that, "community studies suggest that between 10 and 40 percent of young, unmarried women have experienced unwanted pregnancy," so, if family planning services are able to reach those populations, we're in even better shape.
Should We Put a Cap on Kids?
The study has been causing quite a stir, especially by people who missed the main point (not that we should put a cap on kids, but that we should provide family planning to people who want it), but it's also not the first to look at the carbon footprint of having kids.
In the journal article "Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals," Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax of Oregon State University wrote:
While population growth is obviously a key component of projections of carbon emissions at a global level, there has been relatively little emphasis on the environmental consequences of the reproductive choices of an individual person. Obviously, the choice to reproduce contributes to future environmental impacts. There are the immediate effects caused by each offspring over his or her lifetime, but should the offspring reproduce, additional impacts could potentially accrue over many future generations.

OMNI’S Place in a Unified Theory of Resistance to Climate Change

     During the early decades of the twentieth century much progress was made in understanding the nature of the universe.  By the time Einstein was a young man, physicists understood the nature of mass and of energy, but the relationship between the two was not understood.  Einstein solved the problem by his equation:  E = MC2.

      The conditions of climate change, its causes and cures,  are similarly nearing full understanding.   Lester Brown in Chapter 13, “Saving Civilization,” in World on the Edge, for example, offered an early comprehensive model he called “Plan B.”  His “basic social goals” are stabilizing population and eradicating poverty; his “earth restoration goals” include planting trees and protecting topsoil.  He would pay for his plan by reducing the military budget and transferring the money to saving civilization.

      We in OMNI should be asking: How do our activities relate to these goals and cohere in ways that contribute to helping the world cope with the increasing C02 and temperature and their consequences?

     Most obvious are five related OMNI activities that resist rising C02 and warming temperature: 

1.     Support for Climate Change Lobby’s carbon fee-dividend campaign.

2.    Annual Earth Day and related environmental events during the year. 

3.    Numerous activities and newsletters against US militarism and imperialism.  E.g., OMNI’s National/International DAYS Project to replace militarist celebrations with peace and justice.

4.      Vegetarian Potluck and Vegetarian Action Newsletter in opposition to meat production and consumption. 

5.      Population stabilization cooperation with national and international organizations—Planned Parenthood, Population Connection--working to slow then stop population growth. 


Contents Vegetarian Action #23, November, 2015

The Food Industry
Meat Industry Monopoly versus Health, Compassion, and Climate

Nutrition, Health
Senn, Vegetables and Protein
Vegetables and Protein Google Search
Center for Biological Diversity:  Restaurants
UN World Food Day, World Hunger, and US Food Waste:  Connections with Vegetarianism

Dangers of Meat:  PBS, Frontline, “Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria” (Oct. 22, 2013).        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/

Animal Rights, Protection, Compassion
Veganism Google Search

Global Warming, Climate Change
Change the Unsustainable Food Pyramid

Food and climate change - David Suzuki Foundation



No comments:

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)