People Before Profit blog

Colombia and world cope with Monsanto’s toxic herbicide

Fri, 29 May 2015 11:27:00 +0000

Monsanto corporation's glyphosate, sold as "roundup," is the world's most widely-used herbicide. In Colombia, however, glyphosate is a weapon of war.

Pursuing their so-called drug war, the U.S. and Colombian governments, for 20 years, have used glyphosate to eradicate illegally grown coca crops.

Acting on President Juan Manuel Santos' recommendation, Colombia's National Drug Council on May 14 banned aerial spraying of glyphosate. The ruling has implications for beleaguered rural life in Colombia because the chemical, delivered uniquely in Colombia as an aerial spray, has far-reaching effects. And it bears on peace negotiations in Havana between FARC rebels and the Colombian government because the drug war serves as cover for counterinsurgency warfare against the FARC, at least in the minds of government opponents.

The government's action was in response to a March 20, 2015 statement from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. The Agency claimed that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans", that it causes "DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells." There is "convincing evidence that [it] also can cause cancer in laboratory animals."

Awareness of the biological workings of glyphosate is crucial to understanding why it gained worldwide use thus allowing Monsanto, one among several manufacturers, to dominate sales of the product. Glyphosate kills all growing plants within reach, with one exception. That would be any crop grown from seeds genetically altered to resist glyphosate's noxious effects. That crop thrives; all others, especially weeds, die. Monsanto sells seeds and herbicide alike.

Together with Dow Chemical, Monsanto produced the dioxin-containing defoliant "Agent Orange" that the U.S. military applied to Vietnam. Drug war fumigations in Colombia recall that misadventure. Adverse effects have included loss of soil fertility, widespread deforestation, destruction of crops grown for food, water contamination, and a plague of human ailments. Anecdotal evidence suggests increased rates of cancer and birth defects.

Disregard of health warnings on Monsanto products may relate to the corporation's power. Data taken from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggest Monsanto knew about glyphosate's potential for human toxicity in 1981. Animal studies then and since demonstrated low doses of glyphosate as causing "precancerous conditions" and also kidney damage that is inherited. Recent studies from Europe, Argentina, and the United States have shown glyphosate's presence in human milk, urine, and blood. Lawyers in Los Angeles recently initiated a class action law suit against Monsanto alleging false advertising in the corporation's claim that the herbicide "targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals."

In Colombia, glyphosate fumigations contributed to fear and poverty which forced rural inhabitants to abandon small landholdings and move into cities or take up residence in neighboring countries. Estimates of 6.3 million displaced Colombians rank second to figures applying to Syria, the world's leading source of displaced persons. Some 80 percent of displaced Colombians live in poverty, 35.5 percent in extreme poverty; Colombia's overall rural poverty rate is 65 percent. Departing families have left behind 17.5 million acres to be taken over for large scale agricultural operations, mining projects and cattle ranching.

Controlling 41 percent of seed production in the world, Monsanto ranks first in that category. It produces 90 percent of genetically modified seeds and ranks 5th in pesticide production. Presently Monsanto is trying to buy Swiss - based Syngenta Corporation, first and third in the world for pesticide and seed sales, respectively. The combined operation would generate $45 billion in annual income and control 54 percent and 33 percent, respectively, of world seed and pesticide sales. Colombian authorities have licensed Monsanto to import and sell genetically modified corn and soy seed for human use and for animal feeds.

Popular mobilizations against Monsanto, ongoing for years, have mounted recently, particularly in India, Hungary, Germany, and Argentina. In Colombia, politically left opposition groups, FARC peace negotiators among them, are backing the government's decision to end glyphosate fumigations. They are demanding governmental support for farmers enabling them to produce and market food crops and no longer be dependent on growing coca. They denounce aerial sprayings and seek planning for sustainable rural development. The government, they say, must protect national sovereignty and no longer be "ceding to pressures from the United States ... and Monsanto."

U.S. government complicity in advancing use of genetically modified seeds and in backing Monsanto Corporation extends far beyond promotion of glyphosate areal fumigations in Colombia. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a current priority for the Obama administration, would expand sales of genetically modified seeds and agricultural chemicals in Asian nations. Critics say the pact will injure farmers there, as was the case with NAFTA and Mexican farmers and with the U.S. - Colombia free trade agreement and Colombian farmers.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton labors under the burden of having voiced support for multinational corporations involved with agriculture, notably Monsanto. In 2014, Monsanto donated half a million dollars to the Clinton Family Foundation while spending more than $3 million on congressional lobbying of both Republican and Democratic legislators.

Photo: Protest against Monsanto. | ctv.ca

Toxic shock: California's nightmare oil spill

Tue, 26 May 2015 16:25:00 +0000

The Golden State has been stained black. A four-mile slick across the Pacific Ocean marked the spreading of a devastating oil spill, which erupted on May 19 from a ruptured pipeline on Santa Barbara's Gaviota Coast. The spewage dumped more than 105,000 gallons along the coast, sickening wildlife and prompting Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency on May 20. Now, as in the case of so many prior disasters, environmentalists and everyone affected by this are trying to get through what some have called a "nightmare scenario."

The company that operates the pipeline is Plains All American, which had been experiencing what its CEO Darren Palmer called "mechanical issues" prior to the leak. The pipeline was part of a larger network that delivers crude from Exxon Mobil's processing facility in Las Flores Canyon to Plains' pump station in Gaviota. The Las Flores site was originally owned by the Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company before being sold to Exxon Mobil in 1998. The leak was stopped the same day it began, at around 3 p.m., said Coast Guard Petty Officer Andrea Anderson, but the damage is done. For Plains All American, this is nothing new; the Houston-based company has done such damage on many previous occasions, including a 10,000-gallon spill in California's Atwater Village in 2014, and in total, 175 spills throughout the U.S. since 2006.

"This company's disturbing record highlights oil production's toxic threat to California's coast," said Miyoko Sakashita, the Center for Biological Diversity's oceans program director. "Every new oil project increases the risk of fouled beaches and oil-soaked sea life. If we've learned anything over the past 50 years, it's that coastal oil production remains inherently dangerous to wildlife, local communities, and the health of the planet."

So far, that wildlife seems to have taken the brunt of the spill's impact, in an ordeal that is chillingly reminiscent of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The following day, pelicans were found coated in oil, with one dead and eight survivors sent to rehabilitation centers. The problem with those centers, which are filled with dedicated volunteers, is what it has always been: after the birds are cleaned and released into the wild, they tend to fly right back into the oil-plagued waters. Later, on May 22, the body of a dolphin turned up on Santa Barbara harbor. That same day, two surviving sea lions and an elephant seal, all oil-drenched, joined their feathered friends at the recovery centers.

Linda Krop, chief counsel for Santa Barbara's Environmental Defense Center, said there are fears that the oil slick will spread further into the especially sensitive Santa Barbara Channel, which is "one of the most biologically rich places on the planet. Right now we have migratory whales, including endangered humpbacks and blue whales. We also have gray whales migrating back from Baja California to Alaska, and they come closer to shore. We also have a lot of very rare seabirds and other coastal endangered species. It's a very, very sensitive, important place and we don't know what the eventual harm will be."

The shores themselves were also blackened, with two public beaches - the Refugio and El Capitan - being closed at least until June 4.

Plains All America maintains its declaration of "mechanical issues" relating to the pipeline, which was built in 1991, so people still don't know the precise cause of the rupture.

"To see this level of spill into such a sensitive and treasured environment is devastating to watch," said Owen Bailey, the Environmental Defense Center's executive director. "These waters are known as the Galapagos of North America, with numerous species of endangered whales migrating through marine protected areas and off the iconic and beloved Gaviota Coast."

Among the volunteers that helped in animal rescue efforts and oil cleanup was the Oiled Wildlife Care Network (OWCN), a not-for-profit group that includes veterinarians, biologists, and wildlife rehabilitators. One member, Christine Fiorello, former assistant professor of zoological medicine at the University of Georgia, said, "Our goal is to get these birds stabilized, to get them warm, hydrated, comfortable, and get them washed as soon as possible and then rehabilitated so they can go back home."

Along with OWCN members and other volunteers, crews working with the U.S. Coast Guard have been cleaning up the mess, as well as contract workers for Plains All American. The crude is currently only thought to be 20 percent recovered. Workers in hazardous material suits have sopped up thick gobs of crude over nine miles along the California coast, while cleanup vessels gathered, skimmed, and vacuumed oil off the surface of the ocean. The process is long and imperfect, and there is no estimate on when recovery efforts will reach 100 percent. If the Deepwater Horizon fiasco is any indication, the cleanup will never truly be complete, as the effects of a spill of this magnitude often persist for decades afterward.

If activists wish to analyze this spill's potential impact, however, they need look no further for an example than the 1969 disaster that struck the Santa Barbara Channel itself, which is currently in danger once again as oil slick encroaches on that area. The notorious spill of '69 is ranked the third largest in history, and has stood as a cautionary tale that has been all but ignored by profit-driven oil companies large and small, including Plains All America. That spill unleashed somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of crude into the channel and surrounding beaches over the course of ten days, killing at least 3,500 birds and leaving an unknowable level of residual environmental degradation in its wake.

Now, many fear that history is repeating itself, and in the very same vicinity. And once again, a greedy corporation is at fault.

"This spill is so visible," said Kassie Siegel, climate law institute director for the Center for Biological Diversity in Joshua Tree, California. "But so much of the damage that oil companies do is harder to see. This is a tragic reminder that oil production is dirty and dangerous from start to finish."

Photo: Volunteers at the International Bird Rescue center in Los Angeles help clean off an oil-drenched pelican. | Chris Carlson/AP

“No more bomb trains”: environmental groups sue over weak regulations

Wed, 20 May 2015 10:41:00 +0000

A newly formed environmental coalition has a bone to pick with the rail industry. On May 6, in the North Dakota town of Heimdal, another train carrying oil derailed and exploded, setting 10 tanker cars on fire and sending flames hurtling toward the sky. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) stepped in with new regulations, imposing a 40 mile-per-hour speed limit on trains transporting crude through big cities. Environmental groups have largely seen it as a flawed and unhelpful measure, and on May 14 they filed a lawsuit against the department over inadequate regulations of trains that pose a threat to communities across the country.

That lawsuit was submitted to the 9th Circuit by Earthjustice, on behalf of seven organizations - the Sierra Club, ForestEthics, Waterkeeper Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, Washington Environmental Council, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, and Spokane Riverkeeper. All of them feel that the DOT's supposed safety standards are virtually nonexistent, in light of the many periodical oil train disasters that preceded the May 6 incident. The importance of rail safety, moreover, has careened into the national spotlight after an Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia on May 12, which killed seven people and left at least 200 injured.

"Again another derailment and explosion of a train carrying crude," said Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles in regard to the Heimdal ordeal. "Again another community evacuated and its people counting their blessings that this didn't happen half a mile down the track in the middle of town." The DOT's rules are "too weak and too slow. We need to get these exploding death trains off the tracks now."

"We're suing the [department] because these rules won't protect the 25 million Americans living in the oil train blast zone," said Todd Paglia, ForestEthics executive director. He addressed the lack of inclusiveness behind the new regulations, adding, "Let's start with common sense: speed limits that are good for some cities are good for all communities." He also remarked, "Ten years is too long to wait for improved tank cars, and emergency responders need to know where and when these dangerous trains are running by our homes and schools."

That last bit is particularly important; while the Heimdal explosion did not cause any injuries or fatalities, prior incidents, like the infamous Lac-Mégantic explosion in Quebec, which killed 47 people, were much more devastating.

In a joint statement announcing the lawsuit, the groups declared, "The recent surge in U.S. and Canadian oil production, much of it from the Bakken shale and Alberta tarsands, led to a more than 4,000 percent increase in crude oil shipped by rail from 2008 to 2013, primarily in trains with 100 to 120 oil cars that can be over 1.5 miles long. More oil spilled in train accidents in 2013 than in the 38 years from 1975 to 2012 combined."

The group listed numerous flaws and problems that need to be addressed with how the DOT handles oil trains, including allowing outdated tankers to keep carrying crude for 10 more years; allowing trains to move at much faster speeds in areas that are not considered major cities, such as rural areas with sensitive wildlife or even small towns; failing to impose the 40 mile-per-hour rule on trains hauling less than 35 tanker cars (a huge loophole in the new rule); allowing the industry to merely "retrofit" old tankers instead of replacing them; and allowing the rail industry to add 7,000 new tankers to U.S. railways next year, without bothering to remove the current outdated ones from rotation.

Matt Krogh, a campaign director with ForestEthics, said that even the imperfect regulations that currently exist "arrive years late and with the sticky fingerprints of an army of oil lobbyists all over them. We don't need extreme tarsands and Bakken crude oil, and these trains are simply too dangerous for American tracks."

And the 40 mile-per-hour 'slap on the wrist' doesn't even begin to address the potential harm posed to ecosystems and water sources that are far outside the big cities, environmentalists note. "Oil trains derail, spill, and explode with frightening regularity, all while passing along and over our waterways," said Marc Yaggi, executive director of Waterkeeper Alliance. "It's time for the federal government to defend and protect our communities and waterways with the same vigor they have shown in promoting the fossil fuel and transportation industries."

One of the coalition's criticisms was the rail industry's penchant for maintaining the constant usage of older tanker cars, when those models are problematic and long past their expiration dates. But as the North Dakota disaster has shown, even a full upgrade to modern cars cannot change the fact that oil-by-rail transport is a deadly activity. Amy McBeth, spokesperson for BNSF railway, inadverdantly gave voice to this harsh truth, when she confirmed that the train that derailed in Heimdal consisted of the newer tanker cars. "The cars involved in the incident are the CPC-1232 models," she remarked.

"The [current] oil train rules are obsolete before the ink is even dry," said ForestEthics' Paglia. "The new rules would not have prevented this."

Yaggi concluded, "Explosive oil trains present a real and imminent danger, and protecting the public and waterways requires an aggressive regulatory response. We hope our challenge will result in a rule that puts the safety of people first."

Photo: The explosion that rocked the town of Heimdal in North Dakota. | Curt Bemson/AP

Kayakers paddling in Seattle Port chant, “Shell No”

Mon, 18 May 2015 11:17:00 +0000

SEATTLE - Protesters paddled and rowed in a vast flotilla of tribal dugout canoes, kayaks, row boats, surf boards, rubber dinghies, and sailboats, Saturday, May 16 to the Port of Seattle's Terminal 5 to confront Shell Oil's monstrous Arctic Ocean drilling rig tied up here.

"Shell NO," the protesters chanted, hammering on their kayaks with their paddles or fists. "Climate Justice NOW," they roared at the rig, which loomed like an enormous, yellow Darth Vader at Terminal 5 along the mouth of the Duwamish River.

The protesters came from the Seattle and Tacoma area but also from throughout Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands and the North Olympic Peninsula. This reporter came with Brian Grad, a fellow member of both Clallam MoveOn and Olympic Climate Action that mobilized protests against the Shell drilling rig when it was moored in Port Angeles harbor for two weeks, hoping the storm of protest would die down. Instead, it has grown steadily louder and more angry. Brian rowed and I served as coxswain giving orders from the stern of his row boat as we joined the flotilla.

Sitting on a flat-topped buoy floating nearby was a family of harbor seals who barked joyously at all the excitement. One little wide-eyed fellow swam up and crawled on to the aft deck of a kayak, hitching a ride to the waterborne rally.

Alan Rosada, paddling his kayak from the boat launch at Seacrest Park on Alki Point told this reporter he lives on Orcas Island. "To be going down this path, more offshore drilling after the catastrophes we've suffered, its just insane," he said. "We must push for alternative energy like solar."

Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace U.S., one of a coalition of groups that organized the "Shell NO Flotilla" surveyed the hundreds of kayaks, the chanting protesters and told the People's World, "When I look at this, I see democracy in action. People have come together to raise their voices not our sea levels."

She said the protesters understand the science. "Drilling for oil in the Arctic is incompatible with a sustainable future. We are out here because we want a sustainable future and we know it is possible."

She pointed out that Royal Dutch Shell defied the opposition of Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and a unanimous vote of the Seattle City Council in towing the oil rig here from Port Angeles. The company claims a lease agreement was approved by the Seattle Port Commissioners. But the deal was reached in deep secrecy with no input from the people of Seattle or the rest of the Puget Sound community. Shell thumbed its nose at a request by the Port Commissioners that they delay the arrival of the rig until differences with the Mayor and City Council could be ironed out.

"What is on the line here is not just the future of our planet but democracy," Leonard added. "Who is in charge here? Is it the people and our elected officials? Or is it a multinational oil company with a horrific environmental and human rights record?"

Seeking to avoid paying Alaska state taxes, Shell hastily removed an offshore rig, Kulluk, in late December 2012, towing it with cables through a storm raging at 70 miles per hour. The cables snapped and on Jan. 1, 2013, the rig ran ashore on an island near Kodiak. The rig had 150,000 gallons of diesel on board. Environmentalists warned that this reckless operation proves that Shell Oil puts profits first, the environment and worker safety be damned.

Annette Klapstein, a member of Seattle Raging Grannies, told the World her organization joined the "Shell No Flotilla" to add their voice of outrage. The Polar Pioneer rig is "a horror! A monster," she charged. "I am also horrified that our elected Port Commissioners ignored the people's wishes. They knew we didn't like it. That's the reason they approved this lease behind closed doors. The Mayor and the City Council came out against it. The Port Commissioners and Shell Oil basically thumbed their noses at the people and the city government."

Shell drilling in the arctic "will guarantee that we will have catastrophic climate change," she said. When asked what alternative she seeks, Klapstein replied, "First, corporations no longer rule the world. Second, we have a real democracy that invests in green energy, well-paid family wage jobs for everyone."

Hundreds of Native Americans joined the protest, including members of the Duwamish and Snohomish tribes who led the flotilla paddling their handsome dugout canoes. Among them was Faith Gemmill, who lives in Arctic Village, Alaska. She is a member of the Athabaskan tribe.

"We are the ones who live closest to where Shell Oil wants to drill for oil," she told the People's World. "We will be the ones most directly impacted. Studies show that there is a 75 percent chance of an oil spill. These oil companies have no consciousness of what it is like to live in the arctic. They already have access to ninety-five percent of our shoreline. They have no respect for the people, for the wildlife, for the oceans. I say 'Shell No!'"

Photo: Tim Wheeler/PW

Chilling news: U.S. to allow Arctic oil drilling

Tue, 12 May 2015 16:02:00 +0000

The Obama administration on May 11 gave conditional approval to allow Shell to begin drilling for oil off the Alaskan coast this summer, following years of fierce opposition to the potentially disastrous practice. This could prove devastating to environmentalists, and a serious and upsetting road bump in President Obama's path to an otherwise progressive environmental agenda.

The Interior Department, which is granting the approval, said that the official go-ahead remains pending until Shell acquires whatever remaining permits it needs, including from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Shell's dabbling in the Chukchi Sea, most feel, is now inevitable. For the moment, the Beaufort Sea won't be touched, but even that could change. Activists fear that an incident in the Arctic waters is not a matter of if, but when, and that, furthermore, a spill would pose an even larger threat than the Deepwater Horizon disaster, because of the remoteness of the area.

Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, remarked, "We've taken a thoughtful approach to carefully consider potential exploration in the Chukchi Sea." Many are bewildered by such a statement. As carefully as the matter is considered, and no matter how high the safety standards will be, history has taught that the possibility of an oil disaster is always in the cards.

Susan Murray, vice president of Oceana, said, "Once again, our government has rushed to approve risky and ill-conceived exploration in one of the most remote and important places on Earth. Shell has not shown that it is prepared to operate responsibly in the Arctic Ocean, and neither the company nor the government has been willing to fully or fairly evaluate the risks of Shell's proposal."

Activists continue to fight Shell

That proposal is particularly disconcerting because the Obama administration should know better, given past dealings with the company's agenda. It had previously granted Shell a permit in 2012, but the first expedition into the new waters resulted in a number of embarrassing blunders for the corporation.

Shell had to halt exploration at one point due to obstruction caused by moving ice. And most notably, one of its oil rigs, the Kulluk, ran aground that year and had to be towed to safety.

After a wave of vindicated activists continued to fight Shell's efforts, the Interior Department determined that the company had to cease its activities until all safety issues were addressed. Now, Shell is back in the saddle, as it were, and the opposition to its plan is quickly returning.

Thomas Lorenzen, former assistant chief at the U.S. Department of Justice's environment and natural resources division, tried to quell the fears, saying that Shell "recognizes the challenges" with drilling, and that "the proposed exploration is in very shallow waters - only 140 feet deep - and thus it will not present the challenges that the Deepwater Horizon spill posed; that well was in water about 5,000 feet deep."

This can be seen as a rather obfuscating statement, as there are other concerns surrounding Arctic drilling that did not apply to explorations in the Gulf of Mexico. For one, a plume of oil in the Chukchi Sea could freeze, hindering cleanup efforts and prolonging the issue. And then there's the simple fact that a large enough spill will not necessarily simply remain in the area where it happened, and despite the shallow depth of the shelf sea, the further the oil spreads, the more water is poisoned and the more wildlife is affected.

"This decision places Big Oil before people, putting the Arctic's iconic wildlife and the health of our planet on the line," said Erik Grafe, attorney for Earthjustice. "The agency should not be approving such threatening plans based on a rushed and incomplete environmental and safety review. Ultimately, Arctic Ocean drilling is far too risky and undermines the [Obama] administration's efforts to address climate change and transition to a clean energy future."

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, added, "Both science and common sense [are] crystal clear in telling us that undeveloped dirty fuels, especially those in the Arctic, must remain in the ground if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate disruption. Downplaying the threats drilling poses to our climate, communities, and environment - as Shell continues to do - does not, in reality, make the threats any less serious. The Obama administration must say no to drilling in America's Arctic Ocean."

"Instead of holding Shell accountable and moving the country toward a sustainable future, our federal regulators are catering to an ill-prepared company in a region that doesn't tolerate cutting corners," said Greenpeace senior research specialist Tim Donaghy. "Shell has a history of dangerous malfunctioning in the Arctic, while global scientists agree that Arctic oil must stay in the ground if we're to avoid catastrophic climate change."

Shell wants to silence the opposition

Shell, meanwhile, is doing its utmost to silence the voices of opposition, and Greenpeace, one of the organizations that has perhaps done the most to disrupt its drilling activities, is no exception. On May 8, a federal judge ruled that Greenpeace protesters must stay away from Royal Dutch Shell ships in the Arctic, and that they also cannot fly drones over the area where Shell plans to drill. This injunction is to remain in place until Oct. 31. This was the resolution to a court battle that stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the oil giant on Apr. 7, after six Greenpeace activists boarded the Blue Marlin, a ship carrying a drilling unit that will likely be used in the Chukchi Sea.

In what many see as a classic case of the pot calling the kettle, Shell claimed that the lawsuit was necessary, remarking, "We don't want a repeat of previous stunts. We cannot condone Greenpeace's unlawful and unsafe tactics. Safety remains paramount."

Greenpeace spokesman Travis Nichols criticized the ruling, firing back, "Instead of saying Greenpeace can't go near Shell, our government should be saying Shell can't go near the Arctic."

Whether activists can still manage to openly interfere with Shell's operations remains to be seen. And as to whether that potential dreaded oil spill does indeed occur in the Chukchi Sea, time will tell. But one thing is for certain: according to estimates of the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management, the cleanup response for a spill there would likely cost somewhere between $10 and $15 billion. If Shell decides to expand its activities into the Beaufort Sea, cleanup costs for a mess of crude could be between $12 and $27 billion for that area.

"Companies like Shell cannot run from the reality that proposed oil drilling creates enormous risks for the ocean," said Oceana CEO Andrew Sharpless. "As we learned from Shell's experience in 2012, the Arctic Ocean is remote and unforgiving. There is no proven way to clean up a spill in icy Arctic conditions."

Photo: Greenpeace activists board a Shell ship in April. Such activists will now be barred from going near Shell's disconcerting activities in the Arctic. | Greenpeace.org

Cuba’s cooperative farms break new ground in production

Mon, 11 May 2015 14:40:00 +0000

Although farming cooperatives in Cuba are not as internationally recognized as the country's national health and education systems, they are breaking new ground in production yields, organic farming techniques, sustainability, and food security.

These collective farms also form the organizational basis of agriculture in Cuba today. More than 3,600 of these cooperative farms, covering roughly 55 percent of Cuba's agricultural land, provide full-time work for over 300,000 citizens, grow food for national consumption and export, and give the collective members and their families a variety of social benefits.

On a recent visit to Cuba, I had the opportunity to visit a cooperative farm founded and operated by ANAP, the Asociación Nacional de Agricultores Pequeños. The National Association of Small Farmers, as it translates. was founded in 1961 and for years was the agricultural organization for farms smaller than 67 hectares, with the larger farms being state operated.

This ANAP farm is located about 40 minutes outside Havana and its largest buyer of produce is the Cuban state. It was has also been ground zero for many of the economic and legal changes happening in Cuban agriculture.

Since the so called "Special Period," after the restoration of capitalism in many of the world's socialist countries, Cuba has had to turn inward and find new international partners to increase the production of food for the Cuban people. The nation has heavily relied on local food production to enhance food security but has also formed a partnership with the United Nations, the European Union, and the Cuban Ministry of Agriculture.

Since 2009, over 13,200 Cuban cooperative farmers have participated in an initiative called PALMA (Local Program Support Modernization of Agriculture in Cuba). PALMA has supported the growth and modernization of agriculture locally in 37 different municipalities by assisting with tools and machinery, training in modern sustainable methods, business and legal management, and cooperative planning.

The initiative has helped to utilize tools of economic management and create a cooperative culture among the members, as well as incorporate strategic and participatory planning among the cooperatives.

Under the PALMA program, food production has shifted from 25 percent of basic foodstuffs produced in Cuba in 2009 to 80 percent in 2011. Over 13,200 farmers and 366 cooperatives in different parts of Cuba have received training through this program.

In the words of one of the cooperative farmers I met during the vistit: "Many local farmers come here to learn from our experience and we visit their farms to exchange best practices also. That way we all keep progressing."

Photo: Josh Leclair/PW

Astronomers discover galaxy far, far away, and it's baby blue

Fri, 08 May 2015 14:17:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) - Astronomers have discovered a baby blue galaxy that is farther away in distance and time than any galaxy ever seen. It's among the universe's first generation of galaxies, from 13.1 billion years ago.

Yale and University of California Santa Cruz scientists used three different telescopes to spot and then calculate the age of the blurry infant galaxy. By measuring how the light has shifted, they determined the galaxy, called EGS-zs8-1, is from about 670 million years after the Big Bang.

Because when astronomers look farther away from Earth, they are looking back further in time, this is both the most distant galaxy and the furthest back in time. It's 13.1 billion light-years away, in the constellation Bootes. A light-year is 5.8 trillion miles.

This beats the old record by about 30 million years, which isn't much, but was difficult to achieve, said astronomer Garth Illingworth of the University of California Santa Cruz, who co-authored the paper in Astrophysical Journal Letters announcing the discovery.

The photo they took was from a crucial time in the early universe, after what was called the Dark Ages, when galaxies and stars were just starting to form and the universe was only one five hundredth the mass it is now, Illingworth said.

This galaxy - larger than most of the others from that time, which is why astronomers using the most powerful telescopes can see it now - was probably only about 100 million years old, but it was quite busy, Illingworth said.

"We're looking here at an infant that's growing at a great rate," he said. The galaxy was giving birth to stars at 80 times the rate our Milky Way does now. "These objects would like nothing like our sun. It would look much, much bluer."

Yale astronomer Pascal Oesch was looking through Hubble Space Telescope images in 2013 when he saw a bright object. He then used the Spitzer space telescope to see it again. The hardest work was confirming the age and distance using the ground-based Keck Observatory in Hawaii to separate light waves.

Photo: This handout photo provided by NASA and the European Space Agency, taken in 2013 with NASA's Hubble space telescope, shows a galaxy from the farthest distance recorded: 13.1 billion light-years. | Pascal Oesch & Ivelina Momcheva, NASA & European Space Agency via AP

Study: Cutting carbon dioxide saves 3,500 U.S. lives a year

Tue, 05 May 2015 18:28:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama Administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new independent study concludes.

A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced -- an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature Climate Change.

The proposed EPA rule, which is not yet finalized, is complex and tailored to different states. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Study authors said their research, while not hewing to the Obama plan exactly, is quite close and comparable. The study also finds about the same number of deaths prevented by reducing soot and smog that the administration claimed when the plan was rolled out more than a year ago.

Some in Congress have been trying to block the regulation from going into effect, calling the plan a job-killer and an example of government overreach.

The study finds that the rule would eliminate an average of 3,500 deaths a year -- a range of lives saved from 780 to 6,100 -- with more than 1,000 of the lives saved in just four states that get lots of pollution from coal power plants: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and Illinois. The new regulation would reduce hospitalizations by 1,000 a year and heart attacks by 220 a year, the study says.

Cleaning the air as part of reducing carbon dioxide has immediate and noticeable benefits, the authors said.

''There could be lives saved associated with the way we implement the policy,'' said study lead author Charles Driscoll, an environmental engineering professor at Syracuse. ''Why not kill two birds with one stone if you can?''

Lab studies on animals show how soot and smog harm the cardiovascular and respiratory systems and epidemiological studies link tens of thousands of deaths each year to soot and smog pollution, said study co-author Joel Schwartz, a Harvard environmental epidemiologist. The study's authors examined 2,417 power plants and used computer models to project and track their emissions.

The study was praised by outside academics, the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental advocacy groups. But officials in the energy industry called it costly and flawed.

''This is more than just an academic exercise to the tens of millions of Americans who depend on affordable, reliable electricity to power their homes and places of work every day,'' said Laura Sheehan, senior vice president for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. ''For them, this is about their livelihoods. Coal provides nearly 40 percent of the nation's electricity and its use is becoming cleaner all the time. And while these academics are hypothesizing about unprovable consequences, what's known is that families are struggling to pay their monthly bills and companies are struggling to stay in business - and any increase in energy costs will unnecessarily burden them. ''

EPA, in a statement, said the study confirms their earlier research, which shows that for every dollar spent complying with the regulation, ''Americans will see up to $7 in health benefits.''

Three top science officials in the George W. Bush Administration who are now outside academics -- George Gray at George Washington University, John D. Graham at Indiana University and Howard Frumkin at the University of Washington -- praised the study to various degrees.

''This analysis is both sound and useful,'' Gray, former EPA science chief and now director of risk science and public health, wrote in an email. ''The cool thing is the question they ask: What public health effects might occur due to changes in air pollutants as we act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?''

Photo: In this 2012 file photo, smoke rises in this time exposure image from the stacks of the La Cygne Generating Station coal-fired power plant in La Cygne, Kan. Carbon dioxide pollution has increased steadily, by 60 percent, from 1992 to 2013. In 1992, the world spewed 24.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide, now it is 39.8 billion, according to scientists at the Global Carbon Project international consortium. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)