+ NEW REPORT: GM CROPS FAILING TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE
WEEKLY WATCH number 285
from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor
"A new report from Friends of the Earth International reveals that claims made by the biotech industry that GM crops can combat climate change are both exaggerated and premature.
The report, "Who Benefits from GM Crops?", examines the evidence for these claims, and says that GM crops could actually increase carbon emissions while failing to feed the world. This is because GM crops are responsible for huge increases in the use of pesticides in the US and South America, intensifying fossil fuel use. The cultivation of GM soy to feed factory-farmed animals is also contributing to widespread deforestation in South America.
The report also reveals that globally GM crops remain confined to less than 3% of agricultural land and more than 99% are grown for animal feed and agrofuels, rather than food."
Here are three excellent reasons why GM crops are certainly not the answer, even remotely, to alleviation of CO2 emissions.
Read the report here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/Who_Benefits/who_benefits_full_report_2010.pdf
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
There may be no room at the Inn but there is at John Lewis
I just had to pass this along. Perhaps this is the introduction to a new business course called "Compassion in Business." Well done, I say. You know I don't favour big business, but this is super.
Sleepover for snowbound shoppers
More than 100 people spent the night in a department store on a Buckinghamshire high street when they became stranded by the snow.
The 54 staff, 30 customers and 20 children were provided with food and a bed in John Lewis in High Wycombe.
Deborah Strazza, managing director of the store, said they all became stranded after heavy snow began to fall on Monday afternoon.
"There was no way I was going to throw customers out into that," she said.
"We just had to make use of what we had got.
"Basically we made up the beds and they all snuggled down in the bed department.
"It was so sweet, the kids absolutely loved it. They thought they were in [the film] Toy Story.
"The customers were really, really grateful and they could not thank us enough."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8426110.stm
Published: 2009/12/22 10:52:39 GMT
Sleepover for snowbound shoppers
More than 100 people spent the night in a department store on a Buckinghamshire high street when they became stranded by the snow.
The 54 staff, 30 customers and 20 children were provided with food and a bed in John Lewis in High Wycombe.
Deborah Strazza, managing director of the store, said they all became stranded after heavy snow began to fall on Monday afternoon.
"There was no way I was going to throw customers out into that," she said.
"We just had to make use of what we had got.
"Basically we made up the beds and they all snuggled down in the bed department.
"It was so sweet, the kids absolutely loved it. They thought they were in [the film] Toy Story.
"The customers were really, really grateful and they could not thank us enough."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8426110.stm
Published: 2009/12/22 10:52:39 GMT
Friday, 11 December 2009
Obama defends war at Nobel award
Obama defends war at Nobel award
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8405033.stm
Published: 10 December, 2009
Wage war to make peace, I don't think this idea came out of the New Testament. Actually, it seems a funny definition of peacemaker. I'm reminded of "Brave New World."
"President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace.
He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates.
Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan. "
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/8405033.stm
Published: 10 December, 2009
Wage war to make peace, I don't think this idea came out of the New Testament. Actually, it seems a funny definition of peacemaker. I'm reminded of "Brave New World."
"President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace.
He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates.
Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan. "
Sunday, 6 December 2009
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
BBC News 6 December, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
"At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming
for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and
curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions
are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that
greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?""
I suggest that this is a very clear and useful summary (contained on the website) of just what the climate skeptics are claiming. It is by no means exhaustive but interesting anyway. It seems to me that the skeptical position is demanding certainty from a planet that we are gradually understanding to be a self-regulating organism and not a machine. Most people accept that science cannot accurately predict human behaviour. There is so much that science does not understand and that is unpredictable concerning human healing and medicine. We don't refuse to go to the physician because he/she is not certain of just what medicine will cure us or even whether the medicine prescribed will cure us.
One of the saddest things about the global warming debate is the sketchy and outrageous media articles which are designed to sell newspapers rather than reveal the truth. The media focuses on CO2, but fail to emphasize that methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs and ozone are also rising and much of this rise is due to human activities. It is the interaction and combination of all these factors plus water vapour that must be considered. Because the factors and their relationships are not simple and not well understood, the media come out with something simple to gain headlines.
Another sad occurrence is how the media confuses climate with weather. The climate is affected by an overall increase in the earth's temperature of around .8C since in the last 150 years or so. There is no precise effect that this has had on climate. We must understand general proclivities and probabilities when it comes to predicting weather and climate.
Also, the media is focusing on the wrong question. We should be asking about the factors which drove temperature off it's peak the last few warm periods in the 150 thousand year cycles we observe from ice cores. If that is examined, we would find that the important causes of cooling have been destroyed by human activity. Primarily, the vast forests and savannah. The forests have been chopped and the grasslands have been ploughed and saturated with nitrogen from artificial fertilizer to feed a population which is out of control and caught up in an economic philosophy of growth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
The arguments made by climate change sceptics
"At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, 192 governments are aiming
for a new global agreement to constrain greenhouse gas emissions and
curb human-induced climate change.
But some commentators are unconvinced that rising greenhouse gas emissions
are the cause of modern-day warming. Or they say the world is not actually getting warmer - or that a new treaty would hurt economic growth and well-being.
So what are their arguments, and how are they countered by scientists who assert that
greenhouse gases, produced by human activity, are the cause of modern-day climate change?""
I suggest that this is a very clear and useful summary (contained on the website) of just what the climate skeptics are claiming. It is by no means exhaustive but interesting anyway. It seems to me that the skeptical position is demanding certainty from a planet that we are gradually understanding to be a self-regulating organism and not a machine. Most people accept that science cannot accurately predict human behaviour. There is so much that science does not understand and that is unpredictable concerning human healing and medicine. We don't refuse to go to the physician because he/she is not certain of just what medicine will cure us or even whether the medicine prescribed will cure us.
One of the saddest things about the global warming debate is the sketchy and outrageous media articles which are designed to sell newspapers rather than reveal the truth. The media focuses on CO2, but fail to emphasize that methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs and ozone are also rising and much of this rise is due to human activities. It is the interaction and combination of all these factors plus water vapour that must be considered. Because the factors and their relationships are not simple and not well understood, the media come out with something simple to gain headlines.
Another sad occurrence is how the media confuses climate with weather. The climate is affected by an overall increase in the earth's temperature of around .8C since in the last 150 years or so. There is no precise effect that this has had on climate. We must understand general proclivities and probabilities when it comes to predicting weather and climate.
Also, the media is focusing on the wrong question. We should be asking about the factors which drove temperature off it's peak the last few warm periods in the 150 thousand year cycles we observe from ice cores. If that is examined, we would find that the important causes of cooling have been destroyed by human activity. Primarily, the vast forests and savannah. The forests have been chopped and the grasslands have been ploughed and saturated with nitrogen from artificial fertilizer to feed a population which is out of control and caught up in an economic philosophy of growth.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics
Each Other — Where We Are
Ecological Inheritance
If Darwin didn't rock your world, this should
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the November/December 2009 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org:80/index.php/articles/article/5104/
"We know from lab experiments that certain chemical exposures in prenatal life can alter developmental pathways and lead to altered architecture of adult structures (such as breasts). But our current system of environmental regulation—with its narrow focus on identifying chemicals that cause mutations—does not screen for chemicals that trigger changes in development. And our current system of genetic testing—with its narrow focus on identifying carriers of certain genes that bestow notably higher cancer risks—does not consider the regulation of genes by environmentally mediated signals either."
"Perhaps most astonishing of all, epigenetic changes can be inherited. This means that the environmental exposures we experienced as children can have consequences not just for us but also for our descendants. More philosophically, it means that, contrary to current biological dogma, the nineteenth-century idea that acquired traits can be passed down the generations may not be so wrong-headed after all. And this brings us back to Darwin, who developed his ideas before we had a working understanding of genes and who was agnostic on the subject of the heritability of acquired characteristics. The reality of epigenetic inheritance hardly overturns natural selection—indeed it shows us another route by which species can adapt. Finally, it shines a spotlight on one of Darwin’s lesser-appreciated insights: that all of life is interrelated—not only by our common origins but also by our common ecology."
Steingraer is too kind. Lamarck was laughed out of court for saying this. But Darwin had the name and influencial backers.
"Can environmentally induced or acquired changes in organisms be transmitted to future generations? Does the inheritance of acquired characteristics--if it occurs at all--play a significant role in evolution? These questions were the subject of heated scientific and political controversy until as recently as the 1960s, when the decisive successes of classical genetics submerged this debate. If asked, most biologists today would say that inheritance of acquired characteristics never occurs. Yet there are actually numerous well-documented examples of the phenomenon, and I believe it has played a major role in speeding up evolution."
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics; March 1993; Scientific American Magazine; by Otto E. Landman; 1 Page(s)
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=2D40FE07-49EA-4A19-840A-475A8B20456
This is exactly why so many of us claim that genetically modified food is and has always been risky. Furthermore, if it does in the end cause deathly problems, it will be terribly difficult to trace the problem back to the source. This is also why Monsanto and associates fight so hard to keep themselves on the gravy train and us ignorant.
Ecological Inheritance
If Darwin didn't rock your world, this should
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the November/December 2009 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org:80/index.php/articles/article/5104/
"We know from lab experiments that certain chemical exposures in prenatal life can alter developmental pathways and lead to altered architecture of adult structures (such as breasts). But our current system of environmental regulation—with its narrow focus on identifying chemicals that cause mutations—does not screen for chemicals that trigger changes in development. And our current system of genetic testing—with its narrow focus on identifying carriers of certain genes that bestow notably higher cancer risks—does not consider the regulation of genes by environmentally mediated signals either."
"Perhaps most astonishing of all, epigenetic changes can be inherited. This means that the environmental exposures we experienced as children can have consequences not just for us but also for our descendants. More philosophically, it means that, contrary to current biological dogma, the nineteenth-century idea that acquired traits can be passed down the generations may not be so wrong-headed after all. And this brings us back to Darwin, who developed his ideas before we had a working understanding of genes and who was agnostic on the subject of the heritability of acquired characteristics. The reality of epigenetic inheritance hardly overturns natural selection—indeed it shows us another route by which species can adapt. Finally, it shines a spotlight on one of Darwin’s lesser-appreciated insights: that all of life is interrelated—not only by our common origins but also by our common ecology."
Steingraer is too kind. Lamarck was laughed out of court for saying this. But Darwin had the name and influencial backers.
"Can environmentally induced or acquired changes in organisms be transmitted to future generations? Does the inheritance of acquired characteristics--if it occurs at all--play a significant role in evolution? These questions were the subject of heated scientific and political controversy until as recently as the 1960s, when the decisive successes of classical genetics submerged this debate. If asked, most biologists today would say that inheritance of acquired characteristics never occurs. Yet there are actually numerous well-documented examples of the phenomenon, and I believe it has played a major role in speeding up evolution."
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics; March 1993; Scientific American Magazine; by Otto E. Landman; 1 Page(s)
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=2D40FE07-49EA-4A19-840A-475A8B20456
This is exactly why so many of us claim that genetically modified food is and has always been risky. Furthermore, if it does in the end cause deathly problems, it will be terribly difficult to trace the problem back to the source. This is also why Monsanto and associates fight so hard to keep themselves on the gravy train and us ignorant.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
What is there not to believe
From The Times
December 1, 2009
‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’
Hannah Devlin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece
"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org/
would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."
Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.
"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."
http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324
So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.
"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24
http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made
I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."
Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.
Why do I say this?
Well, let's see.
(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.
(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.
(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?
(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?
Well then what is there not to believe?
The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.
Who disagrees with that and why please?
When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.
I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.
December 1, 2009
‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’
Hannah Devlin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece
"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org/
would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."
Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.
"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."
http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324
So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.
"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24
http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made
I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."
Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.
Why do I say this?
Well, let's see.
(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.
(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.
(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?
(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?
Well then what is there not to believe?
The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.
Who disagrees with that and why please?
When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.
I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Illegal logging in Siberia
By Alfonso Daniels
BBC News, Dalnerechensk, Russia
"Wagons brimming with logs accumulate in the Siberian railway station of Dalnerechensk, more than 8,000km (4,971 miles) east of Moscow. They are waiting to cross the nearby Chinese border.Once in China, they will be processed and used for construction or turned into garden furniture and other products to be sold in European and US shops.More than a third of all Russian logs are smuggled by mafias, a practice that doubled between 2005 and 2007, according to official figures.
It is a huge business. China imports nearly six out of 10 logs produced in the world, after banning logging in its own territory following devastating floods a decade ago.
In total, 10m cubic metres of wood, equivalent to nearly a third of all logging in the Amazon, is harvested every year from Russian soil.This fuels a massive illegal business that threatens to destroy the largest forest on the planet in 20 to 30 years, according to Forest Trends, an international consortium of industry and conservation groups.
"“ My boss has a guy who shuts up anyone creating problems or speaking too much ”"Yevgeni", illegal logger"
Alexander Vitrik, a local senior inspector, says that in the few cases where someone is arrested, pressure to stop trials is huge from the top levels of government."'I can't give names, but they're protected by very influential people,' he says.
Mr Vitrik admits that corruption among inspectors is rife, but declines to go into detail.Despite these problems, some inspectors vow to keep on fighting.""'Since March, I've only been given 600 litres of gas to patrol seven million hectares,' he says.""Mr Samoilenko says those behind the illegal logging set fire to his car and then tried to burn down his parents' house, but failed.
His colleague Anatoly Kabaniets, sitting in the driver's seat, smiles when hearing this: 'All this small stuff doesn't perturb us.
My son worked as an inspector and was murdered, but we'll never give up.'"
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8376206.stm
As I remember, Japan is also saving their forests and buying in. I saw recently that China is planting millions of trees. This is truly having your cake and eating it too.
BBC News, Dalnerechensk, Russia
"Wagons brimming with logs accumulate in the Siberian railway station of Dalnerechensk, more than 8,000km (4,971 miles) east of Moscow. They are waiting to cross the nearby Chinese border.Once in China, they will be processed and used for construction or turned into garden furniture and other products to be sold in European and US shops.More than a third of all Russian logs are smuggled by mafias, a practice that doubled between 2005 and 2007, according to official figures.
It is a huge business. China imports nearly six out of 10 logs produced in the world, after banning logging in its own territory following devastating floods a decade ago.
In total, 10m cubic metres of wood, equivalent to nearly a third of all logging in the Amazon, is harvested every year from Russian soil.This fuels a massive illegal business that threatens to destroy the largest forest on the planet in 20 to 30 years, according to Forest Trends, an international consortium of industry and conservation groups.
"“ My boss has a guy who shuts up anyone creating problems or speaking too much ”"Yevgeni", illegal logger"
Alexander Vitrik, a local senior inspector, says that in the few cases where someone is arrested, pressure to stop trials is huge from the top levels of government."'I can't give names, but they're protected by very influential people,' he says.
Mr Vitrik admits that corruption among inspectors is rife, but declines to go into detail.Despite these problems, some inspectors vow to keep on fighting.""'Since March, I've only been given 600 litres of gas to patrol seven million hectares,' he says.""Mr Samoilenko says those behind the illegal logging set fire to his car and then tried to burn down his parents' house, but failed.
His colleague Anatoly Kabaniets, sitting in the driver's seat, smiles when hearing this: 'All this small stuff doesn't perturb us.
My son worked as an inspector and was murdered, but we'll never give up.'"
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8376206.stm
As I remember, Japan is also saving their forests and buying in. I saw recently that China is planting millions of trees. This is truly having your cake and eating it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)