People Before Profit blog

Hubble XDF catches the universe on camera

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:40:00 +0000

As this year rapidly draws to a close, one can look back appreciatively on all of the scientific achievements that have been made in the past eleven months. Scientists created a powerful lens capable of rendering an object invisible for 40 trillionths of a second; NASA sent the Curiosity rover to Mars, where it is conducting extraordinary research; and a form of water has been found on Mercury.

Perhaps most interesting of all was the completion of the Hubble XDF in September; it is a photo ten years in the making, which now provides the deepest, most extensive view of the universe ever seen.

On September 27, millions of people, this writer included, gathered at a web seminar on Google+, where the Hubble XDF (eXtreme Deep Field) observing team - Garth Illingworth, Pascal Oesch, and Dan Magee - presented information on how they assembled the historic image. The three astronomers also took questions, both on Google+ and on YouTube, where the 'webinar' was also streaming.

"The XDF represents the deepest images ever taken of the sky," said Illingworth. "It is the product of ten years of assembling photos from [the Hubble space telescope's] cameras. We took all the data from those images and combined it to make the eXtreme Deep Field." Projects like this are extremely important, he remarked, because they are "the key to understanding the origins of galaxies."

What's incredible about the XDF, he marvelled, is that it technically allows us to look into the past. "The blue stars," for example, "represent very early galaxies that were filled with them. Those galaxies are so distant - light from there takes so long to reach us - that we're actually looking 13.2 billion years into the past." That's not too long after the Big Bang, which is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago.

Magee pointed out that, while the XDF is amazing in its own right, with each light speck in the image representing a galaxy, it captures merely a small part of the sky. The universe is believed to contain about 200 billion galaxies.

Even whilst representing just a tiny fraction of the universe, consider that the data of the image was a gargantuan 250 gigabytes in size, and had to be uploaded from the Hubble Archive in small pieces. All 2,000 images that would make up the XDF then had to be visually inspected, and had to be aligned together perfectly in order to be scientifically useful, Oesch explained.

Illingworth described the XDF a bit more, detailing what each color represented. The red dots are galaxies that were created 800 million years after the Big Bang, and "cannot be seen by the human eye," he said. "Fortunately, they can be seen in infrared light, and that was how those galaxies were imaged for the photo." Green galaxies, meanwhile, usually represent "galaxies that are aging." The dust effect of the old galaxies is what causes the green hue.

The astronomers lamented the fact that Hubble is incapable of seeing galaxies in non-infrared that were born earlier than 400 million years after the Big Bang. But NASA is already working on solving that problem. "The James Webb Space Telescope," said Illingworth, which should be rolled out by 2018, "should be able to see those galaxies."

One of the chief questions asked by mystified viewers was, "How can we look so far back in time?"

Illingworth replied, "The distances between galaxies are billions of light years. Light takes time to cover a distance, making it a simple matter of how far off in the distance Hubble can see. We on Earth always see the sun as it was eight minutes ago. We are seeing some of these galaxies as they were 13.2 billion years ago. The principle is the same."

Also interesting, said the astronomers, is that the galaxies we can now review in the XDF image will someday change or become entirely different. "Some will ultimately collide and become merged galaxies," said Illingworth. "Others may change in color. This will all happen because the universe is expanding. One analogy I'd like to use as an example is this: Imagine that you have a loaf of raising bread baking in the oven. As it does so, it expands, and as that happens, all those raisins gradually move further apart from one another." Thus, for all intents and purposes, our universe is the bread, and the stars are the raisins.

The XDF is remarkable in that it allows an ordinary person to view a panoramic image of the immediate portion of the universe that lay beyond Earth. It's the first step, said the scientists. The second would be to do yet another, even more detailed XDF. "The great thing," said Illingworth, "is that we are always trying to understand more. At the broadest level, it is a bit of a 'penultimate goal' of ours to use the [upcoming] James Webb telescope to find the very first galaxies. Then, the following step would be searching for planets."

As the webinar concluded, someone asked, "As the search continued, what if it were possible for a telescope to look back even farther than the Big Bang?"

"That," Illingworth laughed, "is more of a question for theorists and philosophers."

Photo: A portion of the XDF. NASA/Flickr

Train derailment causes chemical spill in South Jersey

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:37:00 +0000

A freight train derailment this morning sent two tanker cars off a bridge and into a creek in Paulsboro, New Jersey, polluting the water with hazardous materials, which officials now fear are leaking into the Delaware River. The spilled chemical, vinyl chloride, is considered very dangerous to human health.

According to the EPA, even short-term exposure to vinyl chloride can cause extreme dizziness and drowsiness. EPA officials are still trying to determine what chemicals the other train cars were carrying, and whether people are threatened by exposure to any of them. The Gloucester County Times reported that 18 people living near the disaster area have complained of having trouble breathing.

Officials at Underwood-Memorial Hospital said the facility took in sixteen patients with sudden illnesses related to the incident, eleven of whom arrived by ambulance. Most of them are reportedly suffering headaches and respiratory problems.

The accident occurred just after seven a.m., according to the Gloucester Office of Emergency Management. It's not yet clear what caused the derailment, though helicopter footage showed one of the tankers hanging over a collapsed trestle.

Vinyl chloride is a highly flammable, sweet-odored, colorless gas that is used to make plastic and vinyl products. It is known to have troubling effects on the human nervous system and is classified by the EPA as a Group A human carcinogen.

The accident site - called Mantua Creek - empties into the Delaware River, just across from the Philadelphia International Airport, piquing concerns that it could lead to more extensive water poisoning. A thick slick can reportedly already be seen on the surface of the creek, and townspeople have noted a thick, white fog emerging from the crash site and out over Interstate 295, leading to suspicions of airborne chemical exposure.

Notably, inspection crews are working near the crash site without any protective gear. All local schools have been closed down and residents have been advised to remain indoors with the windows shut. No evacuation order has been issued so far.

Photo: The site of the chemical disaster in the South Jersey town of Paulsboro. NJ1015

Will anything really happen at Doha climate change summit?

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:11:00 +0000

The latest round of meetings, both on climate change and the United Nations Climate Change Summit on Dec. 1-2, are taking place in Doha, Qatar. They follow similar meetings over the past years in Cancun, Bali, and Copenhagen. All these meetings are supposed to negotiate an international climate change agreement to follow the Kyoto Accords, which are due to expire.

Each conference hears reports about how much the world is depending on these gatherings to develop cooperative international approaches to mitigate and adjust to climate change. Each conference hears reports, based on the latest climate change science, that the outlook is getting worse and worse, that dire consequences from climate change are already upon us, that every delay means that the steps we will need to take are more difficult and more expensive. No one knows for certain exactly how bad it will get, but the latest calculations are for warming of from 4 to 6 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit or more) by the end of the century. That much warming has the potential to be catastrophic for major sections of the human race.

Nonetheless, agreement has eluded the participants. And there is little hope that the results of this weekend's conference will be any better than the last ones, which ended with vague statements and promises of future negotiations.

Partly it is a matter of political will. Partly it is a matter of confronting the power of the oil, gas, and coal industries. Partly it is a matter of overcoming inertia and beginning the process, even before complete agreement is reached. And partly it is because real differences over real issues complicate the negotiations.

Where to place the burden: per country or per capita?

A key battle is over who has to shoulder the burdens of climate change. One aspect of the battle is about how we measure the relative impacts of carbon dioxide emissions. Some countries argue that we should use the measure of carbon dioxide emissions per capita - dividing the net emissions by the number of people in a given country. This would have the effect of placing a greater burden on those countries that emit the most, given their population.

Others argue for using total emissions by country. For example, in opening the conferences in Doha, Qatar's former oil minister proclaimed that the measure by country should be used. Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah told reporters, "We should not concentrate on the per capita (emissions), we should concentrate on the amount from each country." This would have the effect of letting many countries that emit the most per capita off the hook.

Some countries, like the U.S., are at or near the top no matter how you measure emissions, but others such as Qatar, which has the highest per capita rate of emissions in the world and whose economy is based on oil and gas revenues, have much smaller populations and so would benefit much more from using total current emissions by country.

On the other hand, China is now the largest single contributor to the emission of climate change gases - but it still has a far lower per capita emission rate. If we use total current emissions, China would have to bear a large share of the burden, even though its per capita emissions are still far below those of the U.S., Australia, and other industrially developed countries.

An additional problem with per capita measures is that emissions are not divided equally among all citizens - the poorest emit the least, and some rich people emit far greater amounts. Per capita measures are a blunt instrument, which ignore the class divisions within societies.

How to measure responsibility: current emissions or historical ones?

Another difficult dispute is over whether to base our division of responsibility on just current emissions, or to include the emissions over the last 150 years of industrialization. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions accumulate in the atmosphere and last for many decades or longer, so those countries which have been industrialized the longest have, by that measure, contributed most to the problems we now face, and so should bear the greatest burden of cost.

By this measure, the U.S., Western European countries, Australia, and Japan have historically done the most damage, have contributed more to our current problems than would be shown if we only take current emissions into account. Many developing countries argue that those who have benefitted the most from the emissions in the past should pay the most now. They argue that developing countries can't be restricted from developing more, improving the lives of their citizens more, just because they lack the same level of industrial development.

This would have the effect making it easier for China and some other developing countries such as Brazil, because while their current emissions are relatively high, they have not contributed much in the past to the problem.

On the other hand, developed countries including the U.S. argue against per capita measures and against any inclusion of historical emissions, since that would require them to make bigger, more expensive changes faster and provide technical and financial support to poorer countries.

Should there be compensation for countries that have resources that benefit the world?

Some countries have resources, especially rainforests, which are the "lungs of the world" and which the world desperately needs those countries to stop cutting down. The Amazon forest, primarily in Brazil, and the massive forests in Indonesia are resources that are needed by the entire world. However, without some form of compensation, those countries are unlikely to reduce the destruction of these forests.

In Brazil, forests are being cut down for cattle farms, basically. In Indonesia, forests are being cut down to make room for more palm oil plantations. Those represent a great deal of development, economic growth, for those countries (though of course the economic benefits are not shared equally).

So there have been various efforts to develop schemes by which industrially developed countries would financially compensate those countries for maintaining their forests. There are tricky issues, but some progress has been made in solving them, and some agreements have begun to be put in place. But not enough to stop deforestation, which on its own contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and eliminates the positive benefits of robust forests including that they take carbon out of the atmosphere.

Pay now or pay later?

Adapting our economies to climate change is an expensive proposition. Many approach this in a penny-wise, pound-foolish way.

For example, it would be quite expensive to install a system of gates which would protect New York City and its harbor from the storm surges which are already impacting them - maybe as much as $5 billion to $6 billion (Britain already installed this kind of system on the Thames River to protect London). However, the costs of recovery from Hurricane Sandy in New York City alone will greatly exceed that.

So we are going to pay, one way or another, sooner or later. It makes much more sense to take proactive measures, before too much damage is done. The Netherlands is a world leader in instituting such measures, crucial since so much of that country lies below sea level.

If we just wait for storms, extreme weather events, increasing heat waves, and massive droughts to force us to pay even greater amounts, we will lose the chance to pay a bit less, even though that would require that we pay sooner.

These kinds of choices are replicated worldwide, depending on geography, level of development, and political will.

Environmental justice

Just as there are issues of environmental justice within the U.S. - such as minority communities which "just happen" to be where incinerator plants are located - there are international environmental justice issues.

The countries which are already suffering the most from climate change, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, are also mostly the poorest countries in the world, including many East African countries and Asian countries such as Bangladesh. They get a triple whammy - first from their geography which places them in the path of rising seas or increased droughts, second from being less industrially developed, meaning they have fewer resources to deal with climate change, and third from having historically contributed the least greenhouse gas emissions.

Some Pacific Ocean island nations such as the Maldives will be the first to actually totally disappear, since they are already living so close to sea level, and thus face the greatest threat from rising waters.

Path to solutions

The route to solutions lies first of all in recognizing and acknowledging our common humanity.

As thorny as these roadblocks to agreement are, we all inhabit this one planet. Especially with globalization, what happens anywhere affects everyone. We share a common future, and it is up to all nations to help ameliorate the negative consequences of the industrial path followed by most of the world.

As we increasingly see, climate change is affecting us. More than half the U.S. is suffering from prolonged drought. The entire Eastern seaboard was pounded by Hurricane Sandy. Wildfires in the western U.S. are reaching record-setting temperatures, burning more intensely than ever before and requiring much longer to recover from. We can't solve even our own problems without helping the world solve this worldwide challenge, and without making major changes ourselves, to our systems of production, distribution, transportation, and agriculture.

And while the financial burden shouldn't fall equally, we all share the need to address climate change, so we all have a part to play in building a healthy environment so we can have a healthy humanity.

Photo: A sign held by a demonstrator for recognition of climate change on Parliament Hill, proving that the environment is of international concern. Pawel Dwulit/AP Photos, Canadian Press

Urgent action needed to combat European climate change

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:54:00 +0000

The European Environment Agency (EEA, an agency representing 32 member states set up by the European Union) issued a recent report entitled "Climate change, impacts, and vulnerability in Europe 2012." The report describes shocking examples of climate change and predicts even more shocking future impacts of the changing climatic conditions in Europe. However it never spells out the real causes of the climate change (our dependence on and use of fossil fuel for example) nor does it propose any far ranging solutions. At least none are reported in the story published by ScienceDaily on November 23, 2012 covering its conclusions ("Climate Change Evident Across Europe, Confirming Urgent Need for Adaptation.")

The EEA informs us that throughout Europe extreme weather has resulted in more and more destruction from floods, droughts, heat waves and that these trends are on the increase with greater occurrences expected in the future. Rainfall has been going up in Northern Europe and down in the South. All across Europe the temperature has been going up and new higher averages are being recorded. Not only that, but this warming trend is melting away the sea ice in the Arctic, the Greenland ice sheet, and many of Europe's glaciers. Also most of Europe's permafrost is now exposed and melting due to less snow cover.

The EEA isn't reported to be worrying to much about how this will impact the human population in Europe as such, but is warning all this climatic disaster could cost a lot of money: "If European societies do not adapt, damage costs are expected to rise, according to the report."

Granted all this extreme weather and climate change is in the works, the European Union doesn't want to go out on a limb as to the cause: "more evidence is needed to discern the part played by climate change in this trend...." Our climate deniers here in the U.S. could not agree more. Meanwhile over 95 percent of climate scientists are agreed that this "trend" is the result of human-caused global warming.

The EEA also knows that humans are involved because while they need "more evidence" as regards climate change they do add that, according to ScienceDaily, "growing human activity in hazard-prone areas has been a key factor" in the rise of damage costs. But it is not just activity in "hazard prone areas" and it is not simply "human activity"-- it is the activity of the trans-national and national corporations on a world wide basis polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and the governments that refuse to take meaningful action against them-- including some European Union governments that sponsor the EEA.

The best the EEA Executive, Jacqueline McGlade, can come up with to counter the damages of climate change is to hope people can "adapt" themselves to it. This is at least the implication of the Science Daily quote attributed to her: "Climate change is a reality around the world, and the extent and speed of change is becoming ever more evident. This means that every part of the economy, including households, needs to adapt as well as reduce emissions."

What we have to do is force political actions that reign in the oil, gas, and coal industries and others who want to increase and further develop the uses of carbon based fuels. What we need is binding international agreements that reduce and eliminate the use of all chemicals that endanger the lives, health and well being of human beings and other life forms making up the biosphere. The up coming climate change meeting in Doha next week will show how seriously the governments of the world take this challenge.

Photo: A NASA satellite depicts a storm on the U.S. east coast. Wikipedia

Rhino killings on the rise in South Africa

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:00:00 +0000

The Finfoot Game Reserve in Vaalkop Dam, South Africa became the sight of animal cruelty and bloodshed this month, when poachers killed eight rhinos with rifle shots to their lungs and hearts. The goal was to collect the animals' horns for Asian buyers, who falsely believe they have medicinal properties.

With at least 588 rhinos killed this year alone, the illegal wildlife trade seems to show no signs of slowing, and experts warn that soon more rhinos will be killed than born.

The latest rhino-killing atrocity occurred during the same month that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the implementation of a major U.S. strategy to curb the illegal wildlife trade - in particular, poaching. As part of the announcement, Clinton had spoken about wildlife "being targeted and killed in Asia and Africa," and noted that the situation is a worldwide problem.

Marc Lappeman, who runs the Finfoot reserve along with his father, has taken matters into his own hands in order to fight poaching. He began employing armed vigilante patrols in order to protect the remaining rhinos. "This is a full-on war we are fighting," he said. "We here are willing to die for these animals."

The fact that rhinos are being slaughtered in South Africa, of all places, is particularly disturbing given the history of the whole affair. In the 1900s, rhinos in other parts of Africa were nearly hunted to extinction. In the 1960s, however, conservation efforts began, and many rhinos were airlifted to South Africa, which at the time was seen as a last place of refuge for the endangered species. Indeed, the population grew to such an extent that 90 percent of all rhinos worldwide now live in South Africa - but now, the country is a major poaching hub, which can only spell serious trouble for the animals.

Even amongst conservationists, there is a failure to realize that rhinos are perhaps in their final days of existence. As poaching continues as a profitable underground industry, this probability will become a certainty unless counter-measures are taken. In November 2011, the western black rhino was officially declared extinct by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The organization added that the white rhino was "possibly extinct in the wild," and that Vietnam's Javan rhino is almost certainly extinct; poachers are believed to have killed the last one in 2010.

"A lack of political support and willpower for conservation efforts in many rhino habitats, international organized crime groups targeting rhinos, and increasing illegal demand for rhino horns and commercial poaching are the main threats," said the IUCN in an official statement.

Wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC observed a steady yearly increase by a hundred or more in South African rhino poachings, based on statistics collected by the country's Department of Environmental Affairs. "That the year-on-year rhino poaching losses have continued to grow in the face of heightened awareness, constant media attention, and concerted law enforcement effort is a testament to just how pervasive and gripping the rhino crisis in South Africa has become," wrote TRAFFIC in a report in made during August 2012. "If poaching continues to increase annually, then eventually deaths will exceed births and rhino numbers in South Africa will fall."

Government statistics show that the majority of the killings occur in parks, with the massive Kruger National Park being the main one. Kruger is on the edge of the country, bordered by Mozambique and Zimbabwe, where poachers can easily cross the border and wage attacks on the local rhino population.

Julian Rademeyer, a journalist who wrote Killing for Profit, a new book on rhino poaching, concluded, "The problem with [South African] law enforcement strategies is that they end where our border ends. Poaching will probably get a lot worse before it gets better."

Photo: A rhino carcass lies on the ground near Tantanana, South Africa. Denis Farrell/AP

Activists fight expansion of toxic waste dump

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:09:00 +0000

The poverty-stricken Latino neighborhood of Kettleman City, California has endured severe environmental and health hazards for many years, thanks to the nearby toxic waste dump owned by Chemical Waste Management. The Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility failed to report 72 toxic spills over the last four years alone, and now, the dump may undergo a large expansion. Outraged community members and activists have been protesting the proposal.

Last month, the state Department of Toxic Substances Control - the agency that must rule on the proposed expansion - issued the citations charging that Chemical Waste Management's 72 unreported spills demonstrate that the company cannot be trusted to protect human health.

The 1,600-acre dump lies within the city limits just off Interstate 5 in the central part of the state, where it has remained for 30 years. Residents blame the landfill and its cancer-causing chemicals for causing 11 birth defects between September 2007 and March 2010. Three of those infants died. The situation attracted even more attention on November 12 this year, when Kettleman City resident Ivonne Rangel's two year-old son, Daniel, died of leukemia.

Rangel, who had put up a shrine dedicated to her child in her living room, said, "The first thing that came to my mind after my son was diagnosed with aggressive leukemia was that toxic waste dump. They say there is no connection between our sick children and the dump, but that is a big lie." A memorial service and funeral was held for the child several days ago.

The excuse for expansion offered by the company is that they are running out of room to dump their hazardous materials, even though they found unorthodox, illegal ways to do so in areas other than the space provided by their facility. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined them $2.1 million in 1985 for operating extra land fills and waste ponds without authorization, in areas dangerous to people.

Additionally, the company has continued to come under fire publicly every few years for pollution and illegalities. In 2003, EPA officials determined that the dumpsite was becoming a problem, in that it was emitting unusually high radiation levels. In 2005, the company was fined $10,000 for violating PCB monitoring requirements (PCBs are noxious organic compounds). In 2007, the company was fined yet again for failing to properly manage PCBs, and once more in 2010 for the same reason.

The history of Chemical Waste Management's facility shows a continuous series of oversights and violations, which continue to result in damage to the health of people and the environment.

Today, Kettleman City continues to have contaminated water, polluted air, petroleum deposits, and toxic pesticide exposure, threatening the livelihoods of families there every day. Many of these poisonous conditions could very well be trickle-down effects from the toxic dump. Residents believe it is time for Chemical Waste Management to take responsibility for its actions - not to expand their facility.

Maria Saucedo, who lost her daughter Ashley when she was just 11 months old due to a birth defect, said she felt offended and let down "by a system that would even consider expanding the dump after all the legal problems and children born with defects."

Resident - and now environmentalist - Anna Martinez remarked, "Everyone wants to know what's going on. A lot of folks are scared. They don't want to leave their houses."

Photo: Some of the homes in Kettleman City. El Nuevo Sol.net

You can't filibuster Mother Nature

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:31:00 +0000

The ultra-right, congressional Republicans, Republicans in state legislatures, and the Koch b rothers and their cohort and paid flacks have a problem. It is called reality.

Their efforts over many years, to deny and undermine science and other forms of reality-based analysis, have paid dividends for them up till now. They have managed to keep oil and coal tax breaks and subsidies. They have postponed or crushed most real efforts to address climate change. They have driven the national political discourse and media coverage to the fictitious debate over whether climate change is real or not, and away from educating the public and discussing the steps that we need to take to stop the headlong rush to climate disaster.

And they have continued to reap excess profits from the fossil fuel economy, at the expense of our health and our future.

But they do have a growing problem with reality. The most recent report shows carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at their highest level since the start of the industrial age, and still rising. All of us are feeling the results of the growing climate crisis.

You can't filibuster Mother Nature. You can't negotiate with the atmosphere. No legislative body can repeal the laws of physics. And well-funded public relations smokescreens can't delay the consequences of global warming, which are upon us.

Right-wing propaganda can't hide the impacts of increasing extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy. It can't obscure the massive areas of our country suffering from long-term drought. It can't hide the effects on the budgets of working people from increasingly costly water, gas, electricity, heating and air conditioning, food, insurance, etc.

The well-known "liberal bias" of reality is convincing tens of millions that climate change is real, its impact is already affecting us, and we need to take emergency measures to address it more broadly.

In a recent press conference, President Obama observed, correctly, that there isn't currently the political will to tackle climate change across the board. While he has an important leadership role on this as well as other issues, it is up to all of us to create that political will.

And in reality, we have a powerful ally.

Photo: There are no trees, alive or dead, in a large portion of Tannenbaum Acres in Wisconsin. The high temperatures and record drought of last summer wreaked havoc on the farm. Mark Utzig paced the rows where spring growth should be saying, "normally we lose 5% of the trees for various reasons. This year, it was 95%." Mark Kauzlarich/The Janesville Gazette/AP

Animal abuse: Some food for thought this Thanksgiving

Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:07:00 +0000

On the East Coast where I grew up, Thanksgiving was one of the holidays that was a big deal to us. My parents made a huge turkey with stuffing, corn on the cob, and mashed potatoes, and I watched the Macy's Thanksiving Day Parade in the morning. Never during the celebrations did I think about where the turkey on my plate might have come from - but of course, I was just a kid then. Now, I try to choose my bird carefully, because many turkeys - like chickens and pigs - are subjected to torturous, inhumane conditions in factories before they end up on a dinner table.

Turkeys raised on factory farms are hatched in large incubators - they don't have a nest, and never see their mothers. It gets worse for them once they're a few weeks old; they're moved into filthy sheds with thousands of other turkeys, which is where they will stay for the rest of their lives. You can imagine how an intelligent animal might react under such stressful conditions, so, to stop the turkeys from killing one another in such an environment, part of the birds' toes and beaks are cut off, as well as the snoods (the flap of skin on a turkey's chin). No anesthesia or pain relievers of any kind are used.

Many of these turkeys don't live much longer after this; they often lose the will to eat afterward, and simply die of starvation. Many factory farms remedy this with even more abuse, of course: The turkeys that refuse to eat are often force-fed with a pump. It's important for these companies to get the bird's weight up, after all. Turkeys today are drugged and genetically manipulated to grow as fast as possible. The average live turkey today weighs 28 pounds, where in 1970, it only weighed 17 pounds at the most, according to PETA.

By the way - the obesity that is foisted upon factory farmed turkeys renders them unable to reproduce naturally, so the turkeys are born through artificial insemination. Fat turkeys have other problems, too. Many die from heart attacks or organ failure due to their weight.

In addition to the horrors that come with factory farming, there are further situations involving deliberate abuse of turkeys.

Animal welfare group Mercy for Animals recently uncovered an incident at a Butterball turkey factory in Garner, North Carolina, where workers were throwing, kicking, and going out of their way to purposely abuse these animals. It's notable that many factories owned by Butterball hire, like so many of their peers, non-union workers.

This latest atrocity in North Carolina is the second time workers have been caught tormenting the birds. The first time was on December 2011, when one employee was charged and convicted of felony animal cruelty, and four others with misdemeanor animal cruelty. One year later, these horrific acts are still taking place. Butterball merely responded that it would "take allegations of animal mistreatment very seriously" and has a "zero tolerance policy for animal abuse." It's anyone's guess whether the company will opt to seriously do anything about the situation.

Here's something to consider: turkeys are intelligent, social birds that care for one another. It's not uncommon in a rearing house to find a dead turkey surrounded by four other birds, who, after watching the first animal experience convulsions and other ailments, died of heart failure from the pure stress of seeing another bird in pain.

There's a very easy way to make sure your Thanksgiving doesn't involve the consumption of a bird that suffered. Purchasing organic, free-range turkeys isn't difficult. Mary's Certified Free-Range Organic Turkeys are raised in a very humane fashion on a farm with plenty of freedom to move around and socialize with their companions. They aren't genetically modified, exposed to chemicals, or force-fed to the point of obesity. Other cruelty-free places to purchase your bird are Applegate Farms, Diestel Ranch, and Good Earth Farms.

If everyone were just a little more conscientious this holiday season, it would be an excellent step forward in the effort to stop torturous, profit-driven factory farming. Just some food for thought before the Thanksgiving feast begins.

Photo: Wikipedia

Climate change: A stark choice for humanity

Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:31:00 +0000

The third meeting of the World Climate Summit on the weekend of December 1-2 in Doha, Qatar, takes place at a time when planet Earth is facing a double whammy - an environmental meltdown and an economic crisis.

Is this a mere coincidence or are the two crises connected?

Owen Kellie-Smith and Peter Cox of Exeter University think there is a connection.

"An increase in human wealth causes an increase in emission and global warming, but the warming damages human wealth, slowing its rise or even making it fall."

If this is so, then the favoured solution to the crisis - economic stimulation and growth - can only exacerbate environmental damage, which in turn slows the rate of growth, which in turn requires greater measures to stimulate the economy, and so on.

Where does this leave those gathering in Doha? And where does it leave the green movement?

Back in 2002 scientists Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer challenged the world to face up to the transformation of the planet by human activity, arguing that we now live in a new geological epoch.

They traced the start of the new epoch to the Industrial Revolution and called it the Anthropocene, or new era of man, in which our activity has determined the geological future of our planet.

However, it is not "human activity" per se that is responsible for these ecological changes - after all, human activity before the Industrial Revolution did not have anything like the impact it had once the market economy was in full swing.

Neither is it the much-warned about "population explosion."

As Erle Ellis of the University of Maryland so succinctly put it, "Even with a population of seven billion, Homo sapiens is not an entirely novel force. But human systems are."

It is "human systems" that change the environment, and the overriding human system of the Anthropocene is the market economy.

Apart from the damaging effect on the environment, the Anthropocene is characterised by another unique phenomenon - the creation of vast amounts of wealth through exceptional economic growth.

In the 200 years between 1800 and 2000, the economies of the Western world grew 50-fold and energy consumption 40-fold.

Not surprisingly, CO2 concentration grew by a staggering 37 percent over the same period and it continues to rise unabated. Still, attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have consistently fallen far short of what is necessary.

Over the 20 years since the first Earth Summit, only four of 90 goals have seen major progress.

Carbon trading, the market system designed to channel money to the developing world and give poor countries access to green technologies, now lies in tatters as a result of market forces.

The prospect of a new climate change treaty by 2015 with tough emission targets is fast disappearing.

On the face of it, the answer presenting itself to policy-makers is obvious.

If economic growth is the culprit then the solution is no growth, or at least low growth.

This is easier said than done - and not because of unwillingness on the part of world leaders or because increased GDP is a sacred policy objective of all governments.

Rather, it is because growth is something the market economy cannot do without.

Capitalist investment is directed towards making a profit and once profit is made it is reinvested, in whole or in part, in an ever-expanding spiral.

But if there is no growth, there can be no additional capital investment and corporations and anyone in receipt of returns on their investment have no means of deploying their profits.

As Keynes - and Marx before him - explained, this is a recipe for economic slump.

"At the outset of the slump there is probably much capital of which the marginal efficiency has become negligible or even negative."

So when George Osborne told the Conservative Conference in 2011: "We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business," he was echoing the thoughts of all governments.

The concept of the Anthropocene poses a challenge to long-established beliefs in the market, making difficult not to be driven to the conclusion that the market is incompatible with saving the environment.

This is where the green movement must be most circumspect.

The crisis will not be averted through such schemes as the UN Green Economy Initiative.

Green technology may provide more efficient ways of using energy but it does not halt economic expansion.

Its very selling point is precisely that it provides, in the UN's words, "real economic growth."

Today, humanity faces a stark choice - save the planet and ditch capitalism, or save capitalism and ditch the planet.

While notions of a post-capitalist economy invariably conjure up visions of armageddon and bloody revolution, elements of a post-capitalist society are present in the old society - they do not have to be imposed.

This is nowhere more evident than in Britain and, specifically, in the NHS.

In spite of relentless attempts by successive governments to incorporate the NHS within the market, it remains unique.

Its uniqueness stems not from the way it is funded or the way health care is free at the point of delivery - the NHS is not Bupa writ large. When you go to your GP you get a prescription, not a bill.

And if you have a stay in hospital, you get a discharge report, not an itemised invoice as you would receive through private health-care insurance - even though you are fully covered with nothing to pay.

This is because health care under the NHS is a service and not a commodity - that is its distinguishing feature.

And that is also the distinguishing feature of a post-capitalist economy - a non-commodity economy, in which the concept of profit all but disappears.

This article was reposted from Morning Star Online.

BP to admit guilt for oil spill, pay over $4 billion

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:51:00 +0000

British oil company BP agreed on November 16 to pay $4.5 billion in penalties for the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, pleading guilty to 14 criminal charges stemming from one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.

Two years ago, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf, killing 11 people, poisoning the water with 4.9 million barrels of crude oil, and causing irreversible environmental damage. The aftermath alone has cost fisherman endless grief, hurting the shrimp and oyster businesses and, for those that live in the bayou, upending their entire way of life. And yet, for two years, BP refused to take responsibility for its actions.

Now, the blame game is over, and the corporation could soon owe as much as $21 billion in pollution fines for gross negligence under the Clean Water Act.

The current fine of $4.5 billion will be paid over the course of five years by BP, and includes $1.256 billion in criminal fines, $2.394 billion to go to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and $350 million to go to the National Academy of Sciences. The U.S. Department of Justice has also filed charges against three BP employees in connection with the disaster. Overall, this case marks one of the largest criminal fines the United States has ever slapped on a mega-corporation.

The money going to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will be very important in restoring and preserving the marine and coastal environments - and bird and wildlife habitat - in the areas affected by the BP oil spill. Though it doesn't lessen the harm done to animals exposed to the crude, it is certainly a big step forward.

"This is unprecedented," said attorney general Eric Holder at a New Orleans news conference yesterday. "Both with regard to the amounts of money, the fact that a company has been criminally charged, and the fact that individuals have been criminally charged as well.

"The [over] $4 billion in penalties and fines is the single largest criminal resolution in the history of the United States, and constitutes a major achievement toward fulfilling a promise that the Justice Department made nearly two years ago to respond to the consequences of this epic environmental disaster and seek justice on behalf of its victims."

Many of those victims, notably, are still seeking that justice, as an independent auditor found this year that BP's compensation fund had wrongly denied or underpaid some 7,300 claimants, and utterly rejected 2,600 others. Because of that, the Justice Department in April announced that $64 million in payments would be coming to 7,300 Louisiana residents and businesses.

Fishermen and other workers were not surprised by the audit's findings. Byron Encalade, president of the Louisiana Oystermen Association, remarked, "They weren't paying the claims, and still today we got people with interim claims that are months old now. It's always the same thing: 'It's under review.'"

Situations like that, and BP's initial efforts to cover up the severity of the spill in 2010, merely add insult to injury for those whose lives were ripped apart by this disaster.

Oyster farmer and union electrician Eric Guzman told the People's World that things are still pretty rough. "Only now are we seeing a few signs that oysters might come back. But even today, [BP] have not really made people whole for their losses. Some got back percentages of their losses, and some have gotten nothing."

"The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP's culture of privileging profit over prudence," said assistant attorney general Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department's criminal division. "We hope that BP's acknowledgement of its misconduct - through its agreement to plead guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter - brings some measure of justice to the family members of the people who died onboard that rig."

When all is said and done, however, many realize that even a penalty this historical and impressive in stature, is for BP but a mere slap on the wrist. Workers are still angry, and victims still seek justice for what has been done.

"This settlement is [just] a good down-payment on what the company should ultimately pay," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. The environmental group argues that BP still ought to pay tens of billions more for what it has done.

Greenpeace, too, called the penalty "chump change" - a fine that would by no means give the merciless oil giant any incentive to be more careful in the future, or to put an end to its greedy, underhanded schemes. The group pointed out that the $4.5 billion fine is merely half of what the Shell oil company spent in its attempts to drill in the Arctic.

Greenpeace activist John Hocevar remarked, "The price of one sperm whale in the Gulf is immeasurable. And we still don't know the full ecological story behind the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. This settlement buys off further government silence about the potential impacts. This is simply BP trying to buy its way out of responsibility."

David M. Uhlmann, director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program, praised the fact that the deaths of the workers onboard Deepwater Horizon were emphasized, and that the corporation is finally being held accountable. But, like the NWF and Greenpeace, he acknowledged the issues this raised, stating, "There are questions that could be asked about why the investigation took so long, whether the fine should have been larger, and why BP was given five years to pay its penalties, which normally occurs only when a defendant does not have sufficient financial resources to make immediate payment."

BP made $5.4 billion altogether in July, August, and September 2012 alone - that's $1 billion more than the criminal settlement. After the seemingly endless havoc felt in the wake of such an incredibly devastating oil spill, most environmental groups and victims agree: BP can definitely afford to pay much, much more.

Photo: The Deepwater Horizon oilrig, where 11 workers died in 2010. U.S. Coast Guard/AP

Tokelau becomes world’s first solar-powered country

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:35:00 +0000

Goodbye diesel generators, hello sunshine and coconuts! The remote Pacific island nation of Tokelau, which lies midway between New Zealand and Hawaii and was settled over a thousand years ago, is the first country on the planet to give up fossil fuels and power itself solely by renewable resources.

Tokelau's three atolls, which are territory of New Zealand, now have independent renewable energy systems comprised of solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels and coconut biofuel powered generators. Each renewable power plant has battery back up installed and produce enough clean energy to supply 150 percent of the countries current demand.

Previously the island country powered itself by shipping in thousands of barrels of dirty diesel fuel. According to PowerSmart, the New Zealand based company that installed the Tokelau Renewable Energy Project, diesel generators were burning around 200 liters of fuel daily on each of Tokelau's three atolls, meaning more than 2,000 barrels of diesel were used to generate electricity in Tokelau each year, costing more than $1 million NZD.

Money saved from diesel fuel costs will now be put toward social programs.

Minister of Foreign Affairs for New Zealand, Murray McCully said in a statement: "Until now, Tokelau has been 100 percent dependent upon diesel for electricity generation, with heavy economic and environmental costs."

PowerSmart Managing Director Mike Bassett-Smith says the company is proud to be leading the project because of the impact it will have on the wellbeing of the people of Tokelau:

"All across the Pacific there are clear issues with the current and expected future costs of electricity generated using diesel, not to mention the environmental costs and risks of unloading diesel drums on tropical atolls. ... Energy costs underpin the economic and social development of these nations and making a positive impact on these issues is the single most important reason we started this business."

New Zealand is now working with the pacific nations of Tonga and the Cook Islands to develop renewable energy. And the renewable energy project in Tokelau has generated much interest in renewable energy from New Zealanders as well.

Many countries around the world are announcing aggressive plans for renewable energy development. Saudi Arabia just announced plans to go 100 percent renewable with Mecca working toward becoming the first city in Saudi Arabia to operate an entire power plant from renewable energy sources.

Scotland has set a goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2020.

In India a climate change movement against fossil fuels has rallied many to embrace clean energy, including the remote village of Sompeta in the state of Andhra Pradesh, to adopt widespread installation of solar PV.

Despite enormous pressure from the heavily subsided, powerful fossil fuels industry, the U.S. has made great strides in developing renewable resources. According to the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, as of 2011 the U.S. was number one in geothermal energy capacity in the world and second in wind power. And we are the fifth largest producer of power from solar PV.

But we have a long way to go if we want to be 100 percent renewable. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, approximately eight percent of U.S. power is now generated by renewable resources. And the U.S. is the second largest consumer of energy, after China, which recently surpassed American energy consumption.

There is an urgent need to combat climate change and get off fossil fuels. Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, pointed out in his feature piece for Rolling Stone Magazine, "We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain." McKibben is working hard to get these facts out to Americans during his Do the Math Tour.

Fortunately, there's reason for hope. Think Progress reported that renewable electricity nearly doubled under the first Obama administration. And in 2011, global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels for the first time. Since 2004, one trillion dollars have been invested in the global clean energy sector.

Let's keep the momentum building and keep steady pressure on world leaders, as well as our state and federal governments to push for 100 percent clean energy. Sign EcoWatch's petition today, telling Congress to expedite renewable energy.

This article was reposted from EcoWatch.org.

Photo: Solar panels spanginator/Flickr

U.S. to pursue aggressive crackdown on wildlife trafficking

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:00 +0000

On November 8 in Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a comprehensive, global strategy to combat illegal animal trafficking and poaching. Speaking at the Partnership Meeting on Wildlife Trafficking at the U.S. Department of State, which was attended by conservation groups and representatives of several countries, she underscored the need to address this worldwide problem immediately.

The beginnings of what could become a serious conservation initiative began in a surprising fashion last Thursday, when U.S. intelligence organizations (including the CIA and the NSA) were issued a charge by President Obama and Clinton to track poachers in Africa and Asia, whose smuggling networks are being considered a potential threat to national security. Clinton's remarks in Washington focused on the next logical step in targeting animal trafficking.

"I'm calling for the creation of a global system of regional wildlife enforcement networks to take advantage of those networks that are already operating, and the lessons we have learned from them," she said. "The sooner we get this off the ground, the better. And to that end, the State Department is pledging $100,000 to help get this new global system up and running.

"Everyone contributes to the continued demand for illegal animal goods. Wildlife might be targeted and killed across Asia and Africa, but their fur, tusks, bones, and horns are sold all over the world. Smuggled goods from poached animals find their way to Europe, China, Australia, and the United States. I regret to say that the United States is the second-largest destination market for illegally trafficked wildlife in the world. And that is something we are going to adddress."

Clinton added that she and Obama plan to discuss the matter further at the Association of South-East Asian Nations summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia next week. One key aspect of the problem is the increasingly sophisticated gadgetry and modus operandi of armed trafficking gangs.

"It is one thing to be worried about the traditional poachers who come in and kill and take a few animals, a few horns, a few tusks, or other animal parts," Clinton explained. "It's something else when you've got helicopters, night vision goggles, and automatic weapons, which pose a threat to human life, as well as wildlife."

Crawford Allan, the North American director of wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC, remarked, "The unprecedented surge in wildlife crime reflects a fundamental shift in the structure and operation of the illegal wildlife trade over the past decade."

Groups such as "TRAFFIC, World Wildlife Fund, and WildAid can't tackle such threats alone," Allan concluded. "We need governments to get involved."

Cristian Samper, president of the Wildlife Conservation Society, said, "Illegal trade in wildlife, timber, and fisheries is estimated to be fueling illicit economies around the world at approximately $10-15 billion, annually.

"This year alone, 30,000 African elephants will be killed for their ivory; it is estimated that 448 rhinos were poached last year in South Africa alone; only 3,200 tigers remain in the wild. And more than 25 million sharks are killed each year, more than one third are either endangered or threatened, and in the case of hammerhead sharks, their population has declined by more than 90 percent since 1970.

"All these species are declining because they are being hunted for the international wildlife trade. The revenues generated by the sale of wild animals support local insurgencies and terrorist activities, and promote political instability."

It is worth noting that previous presidential administrations have not made such strong moves to crack down on wildlife trafficking. But for President Obama, who has family ties in Kenya - a nation hit particularly hard by poaching - the issue may hit rather close to home.

The criminal network has been a particular cause of grief for Kenyan ranchers, who generally have to triple the number of rangers working on their reserves in order to spare the life of just one rhinoceros, which could be killed for its horns. The costs per month to take the necessary precautions to keep that animal alive often rack up to about $1,200. Demands for rhino horns as 'miracle drugs' - despite having no actual medicinal value - continue to rise. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the world rhino population is on the verge of being completely wiped out.

The issue, Clinton acknowledged, was that conservation groups "cannot solve this problem alone. None of us can. This is a global challenge that spans continents and crosses oceans, and we need to address it with partnerships that are as robust and far-reaching as the criminal networks we seek to dismantle.

"Therefore, we need governments, civil society, businesses, scientists, and activists to come together to edcuate people about the harms of wildlife trafficking. We need the law enforcement personnel to prevent poachers from preying on wildlife. We need trade experts to track the movement of goods and help enforce existing trade laws. We need finance experts to study and help undermine the black markets that deal in wildlife.

"And most importantly, perhaps, we need to reach individuals, to convince them to make the right choices about the goods they purchase."

Photo: Ivory in Libreville, Gabon, seized from illegal poaching operations, is burned in a ceremony to symbolize a commitment to ending the illegal wildlife trade. James Morgan/World Wildlife Federation & AP

Extreme weather: the Maya and us

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 09:51:00 +0000

Two weeks after Hurricane Sandy ravaged New Jersey and New York, thousands of people are still without power, food or potable water. They are dependent on the city, state and federal government, and increasingly on Occupy Sandy (the volunteers from Occupy Wall Street and related groups) for basic survival goods.

Sandy represented extreme weather conditions that crippled the emergency response facilities of the government nationally and locally. No one had the foresight to plan ahead for such a widespread storm disaster. Scientists and realistic politicians are now saying that Sandy-like events will be increasing in frequency as the earth continues to heat up due to global warming and the use of fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas). What the people of the Northeast have gone through in the last several weeks may well be "the new normal."

These extreme weather events are not limited to the United States but are worldwide phenomena. The whole international system may collapse if we can't halt the warming of the atmosphere. It won't be the first time a civilization has collapsed due to radical changes in weather. A Science Daily article details how the civilization of the Maya Indians in Mexico and Central American collapsed: extreme weather changes are the suspected cause.

An interdisciplinary group of scientists determined that after decades of extreme weather the political system of the Maya, and the Maya population itself, was basically destroyed. Bruce Winterhalder, co-author of the report (which appeared in the journal Science on Nov. 9) said, "Here you had an amazing state-level society that had created calendars, magnificent architecture, works of art, and was engaged in trade throughout Central America. They were incredible craftspersons, proficient in agriculture, statesmanship and warfare [always a sign of civilization] - and within about 80 years, it fell completely apart."

Scientists correlated the written record of the Maya (using the Maya Hieroglyphic Database) with oxygen isotope dating of stalagmites from caves in the Maya culture area. This provided the scientists with a 2,000-year record of rainfall. They found that when rain was plentiful (300-660 AD) Maya culture experienced the growth of cities and of population, but during a subsequent drying period (660-1000 AD) political instability set in, warfare increased, and the state finally collapsed. Then a drought began (1020-1100 AD) and the Maya population withered, likely because of "crop failures, death, famine, migration" and other extreme events.

Martha Macri, the other co-author, who is, like Winterhalder from UC Davis, remarked, "It has long been suspected that weather events can cause a lot of political unrest and subject societies to disease and invasion. But now it is clear. There is physical evidence that correlates right along with it. We are dependent on climatological events that are beyond our control."

But there is a big difference between the Maya case and our own. The Maya actually did not have any control and could not see their end coming. But we know what is causing our extreme weather: carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. We also know that big corporations (and state owned ones as well) existing in a for-profit economic framework are responsible. Are these corporations really beyond "our" control, i.e. the democratic control of the people?

Dr. Winterhalder said about the story of the Maya, "It's a cautionary tale about how fragile our political structure might be. Are we in danger the same way the Classic Maya were in danger? I don't know. But I suspect that just before their rapid descent and disappearance, Maya political elites were quite confident about their achievements."

Yes, but we are not run by "political elites" the same way the Maya were. This past election in the U.S. showed that people can unite and fight off the political elites representing nothing but the profit motivated corporations. The democratic people's movement has won some breathing space and now has an opportunity to push the U.S. government into a serious commitment to fight global warming. It is one thing to go down before an invisible unknown enemy. It is another to know who your enemy is and know you have the power to stop him, and do nothing.

Photo: Ruins from the Mayan society. Paul Huber // CC 2.0

What Obama’s re-election means for the environment

Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:26:00 +0000

After a re-election that immediately followed the havoc Hurricane Sandy wreaked on the East Coast, President Obama mentioned climate change in his acceptance speech last night. Though the issue had not been strongly touched upon throughout his campaign, Sandy seemingly acted as a wake-up call. Obama had some choice words on the environment, and activists now look at what this means for critical climate and energy issues going forward.

Though some lament the lack of climate change talk ahead of the elections, one can agree that Obama has significantly tightened EPA regulations during his first term, including using his executive powers to cut carbon and mercury emissions from plants and utilities, culminating in what the Washington Post calls "the most sweeping attack on air pollution in U.S. history."

The crackdown on coal emissions, moreover, enjoyed the benefit of an overall switch on the part of utilities from coal to natural gas. Domestic gas production increased under the Obama administration annually since 2008, resulting in less importation of oil and petroleum products. And stricter fuel efficiency standards were implemented, which are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons.

Most notably of all, Obama halted the Keystone XL pipeline project, a system for transporting crude oil between Alberta, Canada and multiple refineries in the U.S. The original route would have posed an ecological threat. But the pipeline has since been re-routed, its new path given the green light, much to the chagrin of concerned activists.

Given the President's achievements, however, it was perhaps disturbing to environmentalists that climate science - not even mentioned in the first two presidential debates - had become nothing more than "climate silence" and fallen under the radars of Obama and Romney for the extent of their campaigns, with the exception of Romney sarcastically mocking the President for wanting "to stop the rise of the oceans."

Enter Hurricane Sandy. The largest Atlantic hurricane on record, the superstorm pummeled the East Coast a week before the presidential elections, crippling large areas of New Jersey and New York City, and amounting to over $20 billion in damage.

Obama provided a quick and exceptional response to the storm, earning him the praise of N.J. Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, and the official endorsement of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg - the former Republican-turned-independent.

Afterward, the event proved to be the push the President needed to resume serious discussion on the environment, while Romney's Republican Party friends continued their positions of climate change denial. Obama made it most evident on the night of his re-election that he intended to pursue a renewed focus on key climate science issues.

"We want our kids to grow up in an America ... that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet," he said in his acceptance speech. He also promised to work with Congress to "free ourselves from foreign oil."

But important now is what Obama is going to do, environmentally speaking, in his second term. Environmentalists have expressed the need for the President to continue the crackdown on coal plant pollutants and continue to develop clean energy, including renewing the federal tax credit for wind power, which expires at the end of this year.

Preferably, Obama will take a hard line stance against climate change, rather than a moderate approach. "He can't be on one end saying he wants to regulate pollution from power plants, and then on the other side OK-ing [the Keystone XL] pipeline that will help facilitate one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world," said Friends of the Earth president Erich Pica, referring to greenhouse gas emissions that Canadian oil sands production would cause.

But in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, Pica suggested, Obama's environmental position has strengthened on all fronts. "Sandy changed the national discussion," he remarked. "After Sandy, Obama's going to do something about climate change."

Bets Taylor, president of the climate strategy firm Breakthrough Solutions, felt optimistic, noting, "Obama indicated that climate will be a top priority in his second term. There is reason to feel hope. We have moved from ["climate silence"] to a growing mandate for action."