You can buy your way out of global warming

Recently I heard a story on the radio. The reporter was talking about the concept of people being able to invest in some sort of “pollution offset”. It basically means that a person can opt to spend a little more on things like their electricity, and in theory this extra money gets invested in some form of alternative or renewable energy. For example, maybe you live in Santa Fe and opt to have 10% tagged onto your utility bill and that 10% will be invested in building wind farms in Maine. It kinda sounds like a good idea, huh? The “investing” is handled by some middle-man. The idea is that you can offset your own contribution to global warming by investing some of your money elsewhere. So, you are not actually lowering your contribution to global warming or pollution, just hopefully helping others somewhere else make up for it. One example the reporter talked about was dealing with an “investor” who would take your money and invest it in alternative technologies. The investor claimed that the money was being used for things that were being utilized right now, not some futuristic technologies down the road. One in particular he talked about was a truck stop where truckers would typically park overnight. Instead of the truckers needing to keep their trucks idling all night, they would have the ability to somehow plug into electric stations. The investor claimed that this was already in use. The reported had to break the news to the investor that these stations were not built yet and not being used. The investor stumbled over his words for a minute, but assured him that the money was being invested carefully and the technologies would be in production very soon.

Another option I heard about recently had to deal with some car maker (I cannot recall which one, but I believe it was a European maker) that was making a version of one of their cars with an alternative fuel engine. I do not know if they disclosed what this was, but it was going to cost quite a bit more than the “regular” version, but produce about 30% less pollution. The premise of the story was that if you had the money, you could do your part to save the world; as if us regular folk were the bad guys destroying the world. Well, here is a radical idea: how about getting the “regular” version of the car and drive it 30% less than one normally would? Perish the thought! Why would anyone even consider driving less to reduce their part on pollution?

The trend here is that the government, media, and society in general do not want to accept the fact the pollution and global warming are issues that we need to deal with – the hard way. We cannot simply spend a few more dollars here and there to make the problem go away. Everyone always dances around the real solution: use less. If I just replace my light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, recycle more, and maybe buy a hybrid car, I am doing my part to save the world, right? I hate to tell ya, it might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but in reality you are still part of the problem.

Do you really need that flu shot?

I just learned that the flu vaccinations are grown in chicken eggs. I guess I had never given it much thought as to how the vaccines are produced. Just happened to run across an article in a magazine recently on it. It takes one to two eggs to produce enough of the vaccine to immunize one person. It takes about 100 million chicken eggs a year to produce the vaccine. Now how can you tell me the big pharma and factory farms don’t have a thing going here? The vaccines must be grown months in advance of the upcoming flu season, so the medical folks must guess which strains of the flu will be the most popular. Now remember, the flu vaccine will only protect you from the particular flu strains that it is developed for. This won’t do you any good against the common cold, other viruses like strep throat, or even flu strains that were not produced in the vaccine. Using some common sense will probably do more good at protecting yourself against the flu than getting a flu shot.

Kids Growing Bigger Bellies

(Story from original article at http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/
0,22606,20708214-5005962,00.html)
There is an article in the Australian news “The Advertiser” from November 6, 2006 reporting that American children and teens are growing fatter bellies than 10 years ago. US researchers have concluded that the belly fat of children and teenagers has increased by more than 65 percent since the 1990’s. They say that belly fat is more dangerous than just being overweight, because the abdominal fat surrounding the internal organs is more clearly linked with disease than general body fat. This means that these kids are more prone to heart disease and diabetes. Even 2 to 5 year old boys had an 84 percent relative increase in abdominal fat as compared with the years 1988 to 1994 and 1999 to 2004. And, 18 to 19 year old girls had a 126 percent increase.
This does not sound like encouraging news. The study does not give any information regarding the possible causes of the increase in belly fat. However, I suspect that most people would agree that some contributing factors are lack of exercise and play, poor nutrition consisting of way too many empty calories, and the over abundance of synthetic chemicals in everything around us. I guess with all of our modern conveniences and technology we have so much free time to just sit around and get fat.

Stressed Out Teens

A report by the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that more and more teenagers are being sidelined by anxiety and depression. This is due to their every increasingly busy lifestyle, mainly preparing themselves for college. There is more and more pressure on students to do well in school, participate in extracurricular activities, be involved in their community, and perform well on SAT’s. The Admissions departments at colleges admit that there is a lot of pressure on teenagers to prepare themselves for college, and they have a great deal of competition. Doctors are seeing physical signs of the stress that these kids are dealing with, like stomach pains, chest pains, and headaches. Many students begin getting bombarded with college application deadlines and scheduling SAT’s during the first few weeks of their senior year in high school. According to some people, these kids are now suffering in their ability to be imaginative due to their hectic schedules. They do not have any down time to just think about whatever they want. This pressure to do well isn’t just in high school. It often starts in grade school as parents try to prepare their kids for high school activities. The kids are told that they have to be involved in school activities, do well academically, and find other activities in the community to get involved in. This is all in preparation to look impressive on their college application later on. The big problem here is that these kids no longer have the opportunity to do what they really should be doing – being kids.
(See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6221872 for source article.)

Oil is like a strawberry field

The world’s oil supply is like a “U-pick-it” strawberry field. The early morning pickers have the best selection, and will get the easiest, biggest strawberries. The latecomers will have a harder time finding the good ones, and they will be smaller. This is similar to the way that the world’s oil production is playing out. At first, it was easy drilling and the supply was abundant. After a while, it became harder to find those free-flowing wells. We now have to dig deeper and harder, but are finding less and less oil. This strawberry field analogy is how a Swedish professor of physics, Kjell Aleklett, puts it, as reported by the Vancouver Sun. Even the Houston Chronicle is reporting the “Oil Crunch”. A Chronicle editorial had warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or next, and now a study performed by the U.S. Department of Energy is agreeing. The study was led by Robert Hirsch, a consultant and former government official overseeing research into renewable energy. He is predicting peak oil could come within the next five years, and almost certainly by 2020. The study recommends a 20 year lead time to develop alternative energy sources to replace the dwindling oil supply. However, we may not have 20 years left. Right now the world consumes 82 million barrels of oil per day. The United States Energy Information Agency projects consumption to increase to 103 million barrels per day by 2015, and 119 million barrels a day by 2025. The problem is that global production would have to increase by 45% just to keep up with demand, and no one can assure us where all this extra oil will come from.
Right now gas prices are on a downswing. Some feel that this means that peak oil was just a fabrication by a few loony scientists. Well, the world is running out of oil. It is just a matter of when. The falling gas prices can be attributed to economic slowdown and a surplus of oil reserves at the moment. Many were expecting more turbulence in the Middle East and natural disasters, meaning hurricanes, that never really materialized over the summer. So, the oil companies are left with a bunch of oil and not a whole lot of demand. It would be in the human race’s best interest to begin learning how to live without the abundance of cheap oil. If we begin now, we can wean ourselves slowly. If we wait too long, it will be a big kick in the head. Simply hoping for “alternative energy” is not the solution. The real solution is learning to do with less. This means reducing automobile travel, reducing our consumption of plastic products, and re-localizing our economy. And, we cannot wait until the government takes charge of this situation; it needs to start with the people.

Chemicals within us, and is there a balance?

Just read an article on National Geographic’s web site (http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0610/feature4/index.html) by David Ewing Duncan who had himself tested for 320 chemicals that may be lurking in his body. There are not too many places that will do this type of testing, so he had the tests done in Canada. Turns out he had quite a few chemicals in him. Some he attributed to playing near a landfill when he was kid. But, the landfill was just upstream from a municipal water supply, so the likelihood that some chemicals leeched into the water is pretty high. We seem to pick up chemicals from just about everywhere and from everything. The most striking piece of data was the amount of a chemical used as a flame retardant, PBDE, found in his body. The doctor working with him was trying to figure out what Duncan might be exposed to on a regular basis that may be the source for this. Their best guess was frequently flying on commercial airlines. Flame retardant is used on the plastics and fabrics in planes. It also seems that this chemical has turned up in literally every place on Earth. It ends up in animals hundreds or thousands of miles from anything that may have been treated with it. What this story does not mention is the potential synergistic effects that chemicals can have on the body. This is talked about quite a bit in a book called “The Hundred-Year Lie” by Randall Fitzgerald. No one really knows what happens when several of these chemicals accumulate in your body and decide to have a big party. Think the government or some food or drug agency is testing this stuff? Not a chance. They don’t even test most of the chemicals as it is, much less for how they may interact with each other.

Today there was also a news story (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=52253) that the World Health Organization was going to begin spraying DDT indoors in areas of constant and high malaria infestation. It is not classified as an epidemic, but there does seem to be a high number of cases. Here we have a situation where we have a known toxic chemical that can cause health problems for humans, but, it seems to be about the only option to rid the area of malaria. Malaria can wreak quite a bit of havoc itself, so is treating the area with DDT a good compromise? Many people feel that if DDT is applied correctly it will rid the mosquitoes, thus stopping the spread of malaria while not causing any health problems in humans or other animals. Hopefully they are correct. Is the potential for health risks down the road worth the benefit of ridding an area of a killing disease like malaria? What about the use of the flame retardant? How many lives are saved each year because something didn’t go up in flames? Is that worth the price of potentially numerous health related issues later on?

“Organic” – the new catch phrase

There seems to be a lot more “organic” food available at the grocery stores lately. “Organic” is the new “low-fat” or “sugar-free”. The food vendors certainly have caught on to the evolving trend from consumers that are seeking out an alternative to synthesized artificially flavored pesticide laced foods. While it is encouraging to see this trend in America, we as consumers need to be careful in distinguishing between the true organic foods out there and the marketing gimmicks disguised as “organic” just to sell more junk. You can even buy organic food items at Wal-Mart now. Let’s see what “organic” is really about. According to the site soilassociation.org, organic farming has 3 main features: 1) it severely restricts the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, 2) organic farmers rely on developing healthy, fertile soil and growing a mixture of crops, 3) animals are raised without the routine use of drugs, antibiotics and wormers. The USDA.gov web site has some guidelines for the organic labeling. If an item has the “USDA ORGANIC” label on it, it has been certified to be at least 95 percent organic. If the product says “made with organic ingredients” on the front label then it contains at least 70 percent organic ingredients. If the product contains less than 70 percent organic ingredients, it will list the specific organic ingredients on the side panel of the item. Only the term “organic” is certified. Words like “natural” apply only to labeling meat and poultry as defined by the federal Agriculture Department. In their case, natural means no artificial or synthetic ingredients, including added hormones, and minimally processed. But “natural” really means nothing for the rest of the foods we buy. Just about every food item has some form of something natural in it somewhere. It has nothing to do with it being organic. A web site worth checking into as a consumer is Organic Consumers Association (organicconsumers.org). They keep an eye on the organic industry and help decipher some of the confusion. There is another certification organization called “Certified Naturally Grown’ (naturallygrown.org). It is a non-profit alternative certification program tailored for small-scale, direct-market organic farmers. The CNG certification standards are based on the USDA Organic Standards, but CNG is not accredited by or affiliated with the USDA. CNG helps with small farmers earning less than $5000 a year who cannot afford the high USDA Organic certification fees and mounds of paperwork. It can be said that the CNG organization holds more true to the organic standards than the USDA. The USDA Organic certified farms tend to be more of the “factory farm” types. These are often owned by large corporations, who many would argue are driven more by profits than consumer and environmental health. CNG certified farmers tend to be smaller, locally owned farms. Their produce will probably be purchased at farmers markets or small specialty grocery stores. For now, the organic world is still very much “buyer beware”.