

### The Book of Change: A Tapestry of 21st Century Culture

Volume 2: Environmental Issues vs. Politics

Laurie Izzy

Copyright 2013 Laurie Izzy  
Smashwords Edition

### Table of Contents

OVERVIEW

GLOBAL WARMING AND POLITICS

CLIMATEGATE

POLITICAL AND CORPORATE AGENDAS DISGUISED AS ENVIRONMENTALISM

COMMODITY SUBSIDIES

CORN AND ETHANOL

ETHANOL IN BRAZIL

ETHANOL AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY

AUTO INDUSTRY BAILOUTS

BAILOUTS AND ELECTRIC CARS

NEW VEHICLES AND GREEN TECHNOLOGIES

DRIVE CLEAN

GREEN CONSUMER PRODUCTS

ENERGY STAR APPLIANCES, REBATES AND SMART METERS

LOBBYISTS AND GLOBAL WARMING

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

CHERNOBYL

BHOPAL

KUWAITI OIL FIRES

LOVE CANAL

EXXON VALDEZ

TOKAIMURA NUCLEAR PLANT

THE ARAL SEA

SEVESO DIOXIN CLOUD

MINAMATA DISEASE

THREE MILE ISLAND

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS CLEAN ENERGY?

FUDGING THE STATS

JAPAN'S FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR DISASTER OF 2011

CHERNOBYL 1986

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

GLOBAL WARMING AND SCIENCE

OVERVIEW

120 YEAR CLIMATE STUDY

GREENHOUSE EFFECT

FOSSIL FUELS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

KYOTO PROTOCOL

WHY NORTH AMERICA DIDN'T SUBSCRIBE TO IT

THE DURBAN AGREEMENT

CANADA'S BILL C-38

AGENDA 21

POLITICS TRUMPS SCIENCE: EXPERIMENTAL LAKES AREA, CANADA

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND YOU

HOW WE CAME TO BE THIS WAY

THE MANIPULATION OF WATER

BOTTLED WATER

INDUSTRIALIZED WATER SUPPLY

E.COLI IN THE WATER SUPPLY

WHERE THE RIVER FLOWS

FRACKING

FRACKING AND EARTHQUAKES

WASTEWATER AND HURRICANES

THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR FOOD SUPPLY

OVERVIEW

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ALLERGIES

PESTICIDES AND MONSANTO'S ROUNDUP

BREAD AND CEREAL ALLERGIES

THE HISTORY OF WHEAT

MEAT/FISH ALLERGIES

ALPHA GALACTOSE

FOOD-BORNE DISEASE

ARSENIC IN POPULAR FOODS AND BEVERAGES

CONTAMINATED LIVESTOCK

SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND E-COLI

FACTORY-FARMED ANIMALS FOR CONSUMPTION

FISH ALLERGIES

EATING FOR YOUR BLOOD TYPE

MILK AND DAIRY ALLERGIES

THE HISTORY OF MILK

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS & ORGANISMS (GMO'S)

GMO'S AND MILLIONS OF BEE DEATHS

DIE-OFFS AND MASS EXTINCTION

Overview

If you haven't yet, please see the  Reader's Guide to the Book of Change for some valuable context.

" _You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something means to build a new model that makes the existing one obsolete."  
Buckminster Fuller_

This is a complicated subject and will be approached from several perspectives: political, scientific and personal. The goal is to leave you with a well-rounded view of the environmental issues facing the earth and its inhabitants in the 21st Century.

Just remember to seek the truth. Do your own research. Don't believe one camp of opinion over another without due diligence. Somewhere within the current state of environmental affairs lies potential solutions to become interdependent with our planet - but first we have to separate the rhetoric and the propaganda from the facts.

I'll provide some historical and scientific perspectives by way of experts from a variety of sources to balance and counter balance the political and corporate side of the environmental equation.

I recommend reading Volume 1: Global Finance vs. the People as it provides some valuable context about the role money plays in the systematic destruction of the earth's environment.

Suggested Theme Song

Waiting on the World to Change, John Mayer (2006)

Global Warming and Politics

Politicians did not discover global warming but they sure brought it to the forefront of our vocabulary with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'. It was an Oscar winning documentary film made in 2006 and governments, school boards, parents and concerned citizens picked up the global-warming gauntlet and ran with it as truth.

The host website of this film/organization states;

We're already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitats, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.

_There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now._ [1]

So let me get this straight. We can solve this problem? The average person can? Really? The average person has enough impact to stop global warming?

_Reduce plastics, reduce global warming_ _. Each year, Americans throw away some 100 billion polyethylene plastic bags — from grocery and trash bags to those ultra-convenient sandwich bags. Unfortunately, plastics are made from petroleum — the processing and burning of which is considered one of the main contributors to global warming, according to the EPA. In addition, sending plastics to the landfill also increases greenhouse gases. Reduce, re-use and recycle your plastics for one of the best ways to combat global warming._ [2]

Suggested Movie

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

I think the politicians and corporate moguls underestimate our intelligence but they don't underestimate our deep desire to make things better. And that my friends is why they say global warming is our fault and why it's up to us to fix it as per the agendas of those seeking our votes and our money. Stores may not provide free plastic bags to consumers anymore but we can buy as many as we want for .05 cents each at the cash register. Why don't they stop producing plastic bags altogether? Are they trying to be environmentally friendly or is it a way to make extra cash?

I am not disputing the earth and her resources are sick. I am not denying that man has wiped out entire species in the name of progress. I am not denying the practice of clear cutting and the mass pollution fallout from a modern life of convenience and consumption is destroying our habitat. Furthermore, I am not denying we could all change bad habits so we might promote a healthier environment on the personal, regional and planetary level.

But is it _probable_ the average human being has enough power to stop global warming? Not on God's somewhat fleeting green earth. We might reduce, reuse and recycle to slow the flow of garbage into our landfills. We may buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles to consume less oil from the ground and we might buy enviro-friendly appliances and light bulbs to save a few kilowatts off the grid. When I say 'we' I am referring to the industrialized citizens of the world who have the luxury of arguing over climate change. Large numbers of the earth's inhabitants are fighting to survive because their environments have already gone past the point of no return. They can't save it, they can't relocate – they must learn to adapt, or die.

Speaking of industrialized Nations, what are the rich nations and corporations doing to clean up the environmental messes they've caused with their culture of consumption and greed? Not much. Thus, Global Warming is a marketing concept created by the biggest players of all to get great numbers of tax-payers to buy in to the platforms and products they claim will stop it. Think about it – how can we stop something that's been going on much longer than human existence? Yes, that's right. The earth has been warming long before we ever got here. More on that subject shortly.

That being said, we can stop perpetuating an _unhealthy_ environment anytime we want but they are banking on one simple fact: We don't know how to become _less dependent_ on the things we _think_ we need to survive. Therefore, we remain trapped and they remain in control.

My unsolicited advice would be to try and refrain from buying into the global warming propaganda. Why? Because. The destructive machine of industrialized nations will continue to run because we fuel it with our lifestyles, our wants, our needs and our greed. We can throw a cog in the wheel of progress any time we want but we'll have to work together. We'll have to stop doing many of the things we do. We'll have to put our love for the planet, our fellow man and our health at the forefront of our motivation and it has to trump our desire for the next best modern convenience or our loyalty to the Wal-Mart dynasty. The more we buy from Wal-Mart, the more we shoot ourselves in the foot. If humans reprogrammed themselves to give instead of take, what a world it would be.

[July 2, 2012] With $419 billion in annual net sales, Wal-Mart's market power is so immense that the even the largest suppliers must comply with its demands for lower and lower prices because they cannot afford to have their goods taken off its shelves. Companies that used to manufacture products in the United States, from Levi's jeans to lock maker Master Lock, were pressured to shut their U.S. factories and moved manufacturing abroad to meet Wal-Mart's demand for low prices.

... _Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer and one of America's most profitable companies, netting $15.7 billion in profits in 2011._ [3]

As long as we focus on making and spending money, and perpetuating the status quo, we will never change our environments for the better. We don't need Wal-Mart...it has single handedly destroyed the Ma and Pa shops and community based businesses across North America. How about we stop buying from Wal-Mart and source out local products and services from people and companies who are environmentally responsible? How about we stop working for Wal-Mart and every other corporation that has a hand in the earth's destruction, and go to work for ourselves? All we have to do is stop doing something we only started doing over the last few decades. That's it. No sweat, no labour and no cost. Just stop. Isn't it time to realize your own dreams instead of fuelling Sam Walton's dreams or have we gone past the point of no return? Back to global warming.

To chase a cure for global warming is an exercise in futility. It's an exercise in futility because governments and big business use citizens to fuel (pun intended) the current state of affairs, which is an empire of greed and wealth found beyond Wal-Mart - like the oil and gas industry and the complete exploitation of what's left of the earth's fossil fuels. It's as if we're in race to get to the last drop.

Remember the 1989 Exxon Valdez catastrophe? That was the most devastating oil spill in our history at an estimated 700,000 barrels of crude oil. But progress is progress. The massive BP/Deepwater Horizon spilled surpassed that at over 4 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of New Mexico in 2010. What's next?

Now we're about to construct the North American Keystone XL pipeline through mainland Canada to the U.S. justified by the creation of jobs to a Nation in the throes of an economic downturn that the major players caused in the first place. Don't take it from me - take it from U.S. Congressman Ted Poe, from the 2nd District of Texas:

_For now, oil is the most reliable and cost-effective source of energy we have. That's one reason why the Keystone XL pipeline is a golden opportunity for our country. This project, unlike Solyndra, won't cost the taxpayers any of their money. It would bring 750,000 barrels of oil per day from our stable ally, Canada, down to refineries in my district in southeast Texas. Equally important, it would create at least 100,000 jobs in its lifetime, including 20,000 immediate construction and manufacturing jobs. But unfortunately, the administration has said no to Keystone pipeline. It said no to our national interest. It said no to jobs. It said no to energy security. It said no to our ally Canada. It said no to the will of the American people because most Americans support the pipeline. But it did say yes--yes to China, because China will probably be the recipient of that Canadian oil and the jobs if the pipeline is not built in the United States. Now, isn't that lovely?_ [4]

Want to know how invested the world's governments are in fossil fuels? Yep – the same fuel they get rich from which is the same fuel they tell us we need to become less dependent on to stop global warming. If that's true, why do they drill for more?

The International Energy Agency estimates that in 2010, governments worldwide spent $409 billion subsidizing fossil fuels. In 2009, that number was $300 billion.

The IEA says that the single act of eliminating global fossil fuel subsidies would get the world nearly halfway to targeted greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2020. In one fell swoop, the move would slash growing energy demand by 4.1%, and reduce oil demand by 3.7 million barrels per day.

... _Foreign governments not only heavily subsidize the oil and gas industry, they frequently own the oil companies outright, and use the proceeds from operations to wield power and influence over their citizenry. Saudi Arabia, for example, needs the price of oil to sit above $90 in order to fund increased social spending at a time when unrest has shaken much of the Arab world. It is in the Saudi government's best interest to keep oil prices up and uprisings down, and OPEC is sympathetic to this need._ [5]

People may demonstrate against the Keystone XL Pipeline and they may not approve of Canada's "Dirty Oil", but let me ask a question. Have those demonstrating against big oil stopped consuming their share of it? What about fracking? Have the anti-frackers all converted their homes to solar energy and turned off the natural gas that fuels their furnaces and air conditioners?

We cannot expect change if we are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to bring a complete paradigm shift - which is to move from a culture of consumption to a culture of conservation.

Climategate

Many will remember U.S. President Nixon's involvement with the spy-scandal referred to as 'Watergate' from the 1970's:

From the public's point of view, Watergate started on June 17, 1972. On this day, five men got arrested at an office suite in the Watergate Hotel/office facility. The five men looked as though they were burglarizing the Democratic National Committee office, but it turned out they were there to fix some bugs that they had planted a week earlier. The five men were eventually found to be employees of a secret White House effort set up to spy on the Democratic Party.

_That, obviously, was bad enough. Then it was discovered that the money to fund this secret effort came by re-channeling campaign contributions in various illegal ways. And the money funded a very large spying organization that also engaged in sabotage._ [6]

If you haven't heard the term _climategate_ , it's where politics bribes science to manipulate 'data' so the public will believe certain 'inconvenient truths.'

Climategate Analysis, By John P. Costella  
_B.E. (Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc. (Hons.) Ph.D. (Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed_

Climategate publicly began on November 19, 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution had played a central role in the "climate change" debate: its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the "warming" into Global Warming: they were responsible for analyzing and collating the various measurements of temperature from around the globe and going back into the depths of time, that collectively underpinned the entire scientific argument that mankind's liberation of "greenhouse" gases—such as carbon dioxide—was leading to a relentless, unprecedented, and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet.

The key phrase here, from a scientific point of view, is that it is "unprecedented" warming. There is absolutely no doubt that mankind has liberated huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past two centuries. But mankind did not "create" this carbon dioxide out of nothing. It was released by the burning of "fossil fuels", created by the Earth over millions of years from the remains of plants and animals (who themselves ultimately obtained their nutrition from those plants). So where did those plants get their energy and carbon dioxide from? They absorbed the radiant energy of the Sun, and breathed in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as plants continue to do today. In other words, when we burn fossil fuels, we are utilizing a small part of the solar energy that had been collected and stored by plants over millions of years, and in the process we are liberating into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide that those plants had absorbed from the atmosphere in the first place.

This may sound like a fairly benign sort of natural cycle, until you realize that a couple of hundred years is a mere blink of an eye compared to the millions of years it took for the planet to build up those resources. It is right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous "kick" to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importance—one that most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting, and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.

Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their "old boys' club", to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their "research".

Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because "climate science" exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.

But as wisely noted by both P. T. Barnum and Abraham Lincoln,

" _You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."_

_As an increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the "climate science" community was a facade—and that their vitriolic rebuffs of sensible arguments of mathematics, statistics, and indeed scientific common sense were not the product of scientific rigor at all, but merely self-protection at any cost—the veil began to drop on what has already become clear as the greatest scientific fraud in this history of mankind_.[7]

There is much to be learned here. Keep an open mind and consider all of the available information.

Why would world governments and mass corporations propagate global warming? I'll give you one guess.

Political and Corporate Agendas Disguised as Environmentalism

There is big money in environmentalism when politics and for-profit corporations back it. The new Green Industry suggests we can stop global warming for a price. Yes, we have been sold on the idea that if we buy certain things we play an active role in saving the planet. Those who seek our money and our votes are selling us everything from high priced electric cars to high-end energy-efficient appliances - most of which are manufactured by corporations who line the pockets of certain politicians.

Commodity Subsidies

In Volume 1 we talked about the financial bailouts of Corporations and Countries. Next we'll discuss commodity subsidies to see the connection between the money, the environment, our food, our vehicles and ourselves. The first piece of the puzzle is the amount the U.S. Government siphons to various commodities: $261.9 _billion_ in subsidies 1995-2010

• $167.3 _billion_ in commodity subsidies.

• $39.2 _billion_ in crop insurance subsidies.

• $35.0 _billion_ in conservation subsidies.

• $20.5 _billion_ in disaster subsidies

Partial Farm Subsidy Data Base Chart: [8]

**Subsidy:** _a grant or gift of money from a government to a private company, organization or charity to help it to function._

**Commodity** _: an item that is bought and sold, especially an unprocessed material_

For the purpose of this discussion I will focus on the commodity that has received the most money: corn. We will discuss wheat a little further along in the food allergy section.

Corn and Ethanol

WASHINGTON – June 15, 2010. Between 2005 and 2009, U.S. taxpayers spent a whopping $17 billion to subsidize corn ethanol blends in gasoline. What did they get in return? A reduction in overall oil consumption equal to an unimpressive 1.1 mile-per-gallon increase in fleet-wide fuel economy. Worse, ethanol's much ballyhooed contribution to reducing America's dependence on imported oil looks even smaller – the equivalent to a measly six tenths of a mile per gallon fleet-wide.

_That's the conclusion of_ Driving Under the Influence: Corn-Ethanol and Energy Security

... _a new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that exposes the truth about the wildly exaggerated claims being made about ethanol's contribution to America's security and energy independence._

So the truth reveals Ethanol is not all it's cracked up to be. If it's not, why are we wasting energy to produce it and spending billions to subsidize it? Well, because the U.S. Government put it into law that's why.

_Encouraged by legislative measures, including notably the_ _2007_ _Energy Security and Independence Act, which mandated the use of 36 billion gallons, or 136 billion liters, of biofuels annually by 2022, the U.S. ethanol industry has boomed in the last few years. There are now at least 200 ethanol plants in at least 27 states, almost all using corn as a feedstock._ [9]

The U.S. is not the first country to create an alternative homegrown fuel. Brazil, one of the world's emerging economies did it many decades ago. However, the difference between Brazil and the U.S. when it comes to ethanol production is monumental.

Ethanol in Brazil

[2011] At least twice in recent speeches...US President Barack Obama has purred approvingly about the dimension of Brazil's energy program least applicable to the US.

" _If anyone doubts the potential of these [bio]fuels, consider Brazil," the president said in an energy-policy talk Mar. 30 at Georgetown University. "...Half of Brazil's vehicles can run on biofuels—half of their fleet of automobiles can run on biofuels instead of petroleum."_

In a fiscal-policy speech Apr. 13 at George Washington University, Obama said, "Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline but on biofuels."

Brazil's progress

In energy, Brazil indeed has come a long way. At the time of the Arab oil boycott of 1973-74, the country relied on imports for 80% of its oil supply. Now its domestic supply of oil and other liquids slightly exceeds consumption.

Especially in a country where oil use has grown by 1.4 million b/d over the past 30 years, that's no minor success. It happened largely because Brazilian production of crude oil over the same period grew by 1.8 million b/d.

But Obama focuses on Brazilian ethanol, of which the country produces about 460,000 b/d. The supplemental fuel supply surely helped Brazil become self-sufficient in oil but can't be said to have been the main factor.

Brazil does not work as a model for US action on ethanol.

_Brazilian ethanol occupies an economic and political world altogether different from that of its US counterpart. In Brazil, ethanol comes from cane sugar, a feedstock that can be fermented directly into alcohol. US ethanol comes from corn, the starch from which must be converted to sugar in a process that about doubles the energy requirement in comparison with direct distillation of sugar and thus increases cost._ [10]

 [11]

Meanwhile, in 2012...

Brazil is struggling to make enough ethanol to satisfy domestic demand just as the U.S. scraps restrictions on imports for the first time since 1980.

The U.S., the world's largest market for the biofuel, on Jan. 1 2012 cut a 45 cent-a-gallon tax credit and a 54 cent-a-gallon tariff that protected local companies from foreign competition. Brazil, the world's No. 2 producer, is unlikely to be able to take advantage after output dropped 19 percent this season.

Brazil's fast-growing fleet of flex-fuel cars, which burn any mix of gasoline and ethanol, will cause domestic demand for the distilled sugar cane juice to rise to 50 billion liters per year by 2018, a government study shows.

_Efforts by the U.S. and Brazil to promote cane production in Africa and elsewhere over the last five years have yielded little other than identifying countries with production potential_ [12] _._

Wait a minute. Ethanol production in Africa? Are they going to add that to the list of exploits we talked about back in Volume 1? Since Africa is also connected to ethanol, I wonder if one of the other characters from Volume 1 and Global Finance, Goldman Sachs, is too ...or would that be too conspiracy theory-ish?

[Brazil, 2008] This ethanol has been serving the Brazilian transport sector for the past three decades without attracting much international interest or comment. That suddenly changed when the west saw biofuels as a source of energy security and clean power but the soaring cost of food and fears of deforestation have triggered a global debate on whether ethanol will cure or kill the planet.

Anselmo Lopes Rodrigues, chief executive of Santelisa Vale, which owns the sugar mill outside Sertãozinho, perhaps unsurprisingly is convinced of the big new future for ethanol. "We have a very large expansion plan," he says. "In the next few years we must be very close to oil companies."

That process has already started. In April, an associated business of Santelisa announced it had formed a 50-50 joint venture with BP in a deal worth as much as $1bn (£500m). The following day, Santelisa's main rival bought Exxon Mobil's network of filling stations in Brazil.

_Goldman Sachs_ _, the US investment bank, has recently bought a 16% stake in Santelisa and there is talk of a stock market listing – not only in São Paulo but also in New York._

The sugar cane industry has a long history: Portuguese colonialists started to grow the crop in 1525 and 6 million slaves were shipped over from Africa to do the cutting. The Brazilians have been using sugar-based alcohol to fuel cars since the 1920s although the industry really got off the ground in the 1970s when the government sought relief from a first oil price shock.

With oil prices close to $140 a barrel, Brazil thought its time in the economic sun had arrived, given its claims that using ethanol can cut carbon emissions by 90% on a life-cycle analysis.

This encouraged Britain to mandate that 2.5% of all petrol and diesel should come from crop-based fuels and the EU is looking at similar moves. Sweden moved swiftly along this path and is a huge importer of Brazilian ethanol.

President George Bush talked of encouraging ethanol consumption in the US in a meeting with the Brazilian president, Lula da Silva. The US wants to raise its consumption from 5bn to 35bn gallons by 2017 through a mixture of its corn-based supplies and sugar-based imports from Brazil.

No sooner had the world started to buy into the benefits than the environmental and labour record of the ethanol sector were called into question. Swedish motorists have been threatening to forsake this cleaner fuel amid allegations that some sugar cutters in Brazil are paid rock bottom wages, are under-age and die young from exhaustion.

_To counter all this and stop a potential international industry being snuffed out at birth, the Brazilian Sugar Cane Industry Association (UNICA) has launched a counter-offensive with a brand new team of public relations and other professionals._ [13]

Please see the full article  here.

Let's turn to National Geographic, a popular source of information for one more perspective:

Every biofuel also consumes crops that could be feeding a hungry globe. A recent UN report concludes that although the potential benefits are large, the biofuels boom could reduce food security and drive up food prices in a world where 25,000 people die of hunger every day, most under age five. Demand for both fuel and food is expected to more than double by mid-century, and many scientists fear that in coming decades, climate change will undermine agricultural productivity. "Agriculture should be used to stop the hunger of the people. If one person were hungry, this would be a shame," says Goulart. "There are millions who are hungry in Brazil, and this monoculture does not help."

The only way to reap the benefits of biofuels without squeezing the food supply is to take food out of the picture. Though corn kernels and cane juice are the traditional sources of ethanol, you can also make it from stalks, leaves, and even sawdust—plant by-products that are normally dumped, burned, or plowed back under. These materials are mostly cellulose, the tough chains of sugar molecules that make up plant cell walls.

Breaking up those chains and fermenting the sugars could yield a cornucopia of biofuels, without competing with food crops. Biofuel visionaries picture a resurgence of deep-rooted perennial prairie grasses like switchgrass or buffalo grass, sequestering carbon in the soil, providing wildlife habitat and erosion control, and supplying a bounty of homegrown fuel.

_The principle behind cellulosic ethanol is simple. Making it as cheap as gas isn't._ [14]

Here is the full article archived with  National Geographic.

While the negative environmental impacts of ethanol production are swept under the rug along with lack of proof of supporting the 'less dependency on foreign oil' theory, let's try to figure out how more pieces of this global environmental puzzle connect.

Corn (as a commodity) received the most money (and had the most recipients) in subsidies from the U.S. Government. Monsanto and Bayer created genetically modified corn. Aside from the fact that corn or a derivative of it is in most manufactured food, Corn is also the predominant ingredient used in ethanol. Ethanol is a bio-fuel legislated by Congress to save the environment. Ethanol-capable engines are manufactured by the Big Three Automakers. The Big Three Automakers received billions in bailout money.

Ethanol and the Auto Industry

In addition to the 5-15% ethanol that's currently blended into regular fuel available at every gas station across North America, there is E85. E85 is a bio fuel blend of 15% regular fuel and 85% ethanol and is only available in a few locations.

Here's the thing. E85 engines (also known as Flex Fuel, Green Technologies, Enviro-Friendly engines, etc.) are predominantly manufactured by the Big Three Auto Makers in Detroit. These new eco-engines and are in most new vehicles rolling off the line (or offered as an available option). The Big Three had their hands in the bailout bucket after the financial collapse, and are now partially owned by the Government (U.S. and Canada). Imagine that. It's all connected.

Right now, there are more than 8.5 million flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) on America's highways, capable of taking any blend of gasoline-ethanol fuel ranging from E10 (10 percent ethanol, or standard unleaded) to E85 (85 percent ethanol), and various blends in between, E30 (30% ethanol), E50 (50% ethanol). The big three U.S.-based automakers have committed to manufacturing 50 percent of their vehicles as FFVs by 2012.

In the meantime, according to this Ethanol retailer, profits have never been better:

" _I knew that once people realized the benefits of ethanol ...they would get excited about the product. I now have hundreds of new customers, and revenue and profits have increased significantly. Today, I get between 10 and 20 cents profit margin across my various blends." Bruce Vollan, Midway Services, Inc. Baltic, South Dakota._ [15]

I went back to the above quote's original source in October 2012 (a few months after the original citation) and it was no longer available. It's not good for business to broadcast the hunger for profit when you're supposed to be environmentally friendly, so that page now reads like this:

Welcome to Ethanol Retailer. This site has everything you need to know about selling higher blends of ethanol. You'll learn how ethanol can be used in various blends, from selling E15 for 2001 and newer vehicles to offering even higher blends for our nation's 9.5 million flex fuel vehicles. Combined, E15 and higher blends of ethanol can be used by more than 72 percent vehicles — over 180 million — on the road today.

Here are the brands of vehicles that run on E85 _flex fuel_ as of the 2011 Model Year.

Detroit's automakers and the U.S. government say that using E85 ethanol-blended fuel, a blend of up to 85 percent ethanol and gasoline, is an essential ingredient in America's quest for energy independence. If you agree--and you want to show your support with your checkbook--you're in luck.

_New-car buyers have their pick of 46 models that can run on E85. Choices include cars, minivans, full-size vans, SUVs, pickup trucks, and, new for 2011, three ultra-expensive exotic cars._ _General Motors_ _leads the race with 15 models for 2011._ _Chrysler_ _and its Dodge, Jeep, and Ram divisions are next with 12 flex-fuel models._ _Ford_ _has 10 models, newcomer Bentley has three entries, Nissan and Toyota have two each, and Mazda and Mercedes-Benz have one each._ [16]

If the purpose of the subsidy money for crops (most specifically, corn) were to help boost the farmers so they could feed the people with healthy crops, we would not be having this discussion.

If the purpose of the auto bailouts were to create and manufacture immediate, sustainable technologies to rebuild an antiquated industry with billions of dollars (so the entire global car-buying population had access to affordable, truly environmentally friendly vehicles), we would not be having this discussion. A few electric cars and a few hybrids don't count. Compare how many of those are on the roads as compared to the bulk of vehicles still running on oil, gas and the internal combustion engine. Shouldn't it be the other way around by now?

And, if people were actually working in farming and auto jobs that innovate and create sustainable technologies and healthy, affordable food for the planet and its inhabitants, then I would have nothing to expose. Think about it. Everyone could be working, providing for his or her families, and everyone could be a whole lot healthier, as would the planet if they had put the bailout money to good use. But they didn't. What they have done is use the money under false pretenses to continue to perpetuate the status quo through the blood, sweat and tears of the average citizen.

Suggested Song

Gone, Jack Johnson (2003)

The manipulation of crops for fuel in the 21st Century is beginning to show negative effects on the global food supply.

[October 2, 2012] _Since Congress expanded the corn ethanol mandate in 2007, the Consumer Price Index for meat, poultry, fish and eggs has risen by 79 percent. The current drought has rendered corn supplies scarce. But under the mandate, corn ethanol continues to "eat first."_

For the poorest Americans, who spend a quarter or more of their income of food, spiking food prices add to their pain. For the global poor, the stakes are even higher. Oxfam, the international relief organization, has calculated that biofuels have endangered the livelihood of 100 million people and dragged more than 30 million people into poverty.

Corn ethanol puts pressure on gasoline prices. Because corn ethanol is far less efficient than gasoline, consumers have to use more to travel the same distance. On a per-mile basis, corn ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. By contrast, new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks will double mileage per gallon and save Americans $1.7 trillion at the pump.

_Blending corn ethanol into vehicle fuel has done little to address energy security. It has displaced some gasoline in the U.S. fuel supply but_ has not _reduced oil imports, according to recent studies. Decreasing world oil demand by less than 1 percent is nothing to brag about..._ [17]

We will get into more detail about the role corn plays in food, and ultimately human health, later. For now, let's continue with how governments and corporations hide under the veil of environmentalism and green initiatives to maximize profits.

Auto Industry Bailouts

Just how much money did GM, Chrysler and Ford receive from their North American Governments during the height of the bailout period? Let's go back in time to see how things evolved.

[November 20, 2008] Stock Markets crashed in the last hour following law makers saying NO to the $25 billion bailout requested by the big three US Auto corporations, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, as the once thought of too big to fail are increasingly teetering at the brink of bankruptcy as law makers on capital Hill (Nancy Pelosi) had been seeking to allocate part of the $700 billion bank bailout funds at the auto industry so as to prevent bankruptcy and mass unemployment as a chain reaction hits suppliers that would impact on nearly 4 million US Jobs. Given the magnitude of the debts and losses of the big three, the initial estimates of $25 billion would soon have mushroomed to over $100 billion.

... _Representatives of the big three were criticized for wasting tens of thousands of dollars on flying in on corporate jets whilst their companies teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. Additionally the three could not adequately answer the specific questions asked by law makers as to exactly how long they could survive on x amount of dollars, what they would do to limit executive pay and what stake the government would take in the corporations, instead the auto representatives waffled and angered the frustrated members of the financial services committee. The big three were given until 2nd of December to present a revised plan that would be acceptable to congress_.[18]

It has been a challenge to research an accurate allocation of funds. Most articles quote an initial bailout package of approximately 80 billion dollars.

Many sources claim the auto giants are back in business as of 2012, have become profitable, have paid back all if not most of what they owe, have moved to greener technologies, have added more jobs and have produced millions of new vehicles.

The Big 3 have also been called the Detroit 3. As of July 18, 2013 the headlines read:  Detroit Bankrupt: Federal Judge To Place City Under Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Protection.

I guess all the money didn't make it through to the local economy.

Let's try to find something a little more specific than general 'all good' claims.

Automakers' Report Card: Who Still Owes Taxpayers Money? The Answer Might Surprise You, Joanne Muller, Forbes.com, August 2012

Ford Motor owes the government $5.9 billion it borrowed in June 2009, the same month GM filed for bankruptcy. By Sept. 15, Ford needs to start paying that money back. In a government filing, the carmaker said $577 million is due within the next year, and the full amount must be paid off by June 15, 2022.

The other ATVM recipients were Nissan ($1.6 billion), Tesla Motors ($465 million), Fisker Automotive ($529 million) and the Vehicle Production Group ($50 million), a start-up company promoting a handicapped-accessible van that runs on natural gas.

The DOE spent another $2.4 billion in federal stimulus money – most of it in Michigan – to provide matching grants to help companies build manufacturing facilities for advanced batteries and EV components. Unlike the ATVM loan program, those grants don't have to be paid back.

So how did all that government aid for the auto industry work out? The results are mixed, at best. Chrysler, despite its long odds, is doing surprisingly well under Fiat ownership. Successful turnarounds at GM and Ford in the U.S. are weighed down by problems in Europe.

But car buyers, it seems, weren't nearly as excited about electric vehicles as President Obama, who has since backed off his 2015 EV target. Most of the government-backed battery factories are operating well below their production capacity. Many recipients have shifted their focus away from electric vehicles toward grid storage opportunities. At least three recipients of federal funding collapsed or are struggling to stay afloat. Battery-maker A123 Systems, desperate for money, fell into the hands of a Chinese auto supplier. Another, Ener1, went bankrupt and is now owned by a Russian business tycoon.

If you're keeping score (and you should be) here's a rundown of how some of the government's largest auto industry investments turned out:

_GM:_ _repaid $23.1 billion of the $49.5 billion it got from the U.S. Treasury, including all of its outstanding loans. But Treasury still owns 500 million shares, or 32%, of GM stock. To recoup its full investment, GM stock needs to hit $52.80 per share. It's currently trading around $21. GM also received a $106 million matching grant to build a battery factory in Brownstown, MI, where it is assembling battery packs for the Chevrolet Volt plug-in car using cells imported from Korea._

_Chrysler:_ _repaid $9.2 billion, fulfilling its debt obligations to the U.S. and Canadian governments, and is now owned by Italian automaker Fiat (58.5%) and a health care trust for UAW retirees (41.5%). Overall, taxpayers lost $1.3 billion on the Chrysler bailout. In full recovery mode, Chrysler is currently the fastest-growing carmaker in the world._

_Ford:_ _used its $5.9 billion loan to convert two truck plants to small-car production and to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles like the Ford Focus EV and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid, on sale this fall. Loan repayments start in September. Ford says it will spend $14 billion over the next seven years on advanced-technology vehicles._

The full article quoted above can be found  here.

Bailouts and Electric Cars

How many electric cars do you see in mainstream America?

_This round of $2.4 billion in grants announced today is part of the electric vehicle program contained in the stimulus package. The government also has_ _another_ _$25 billion in grants to develop fuel-efficient vehicles. Earlier this year, Ford, Nissan and the California-based Tesla received a big chunk of that money for electric car research and manufacturing._ [19]

Have you heard about the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I think it might be time to put this book down so you can watch it. Take a deep breath. They had the technologies to bring electric cars to market a decade ago but as quickly as it emerged, it was submerged.

Suggested Documentary

 Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)

After all the money was given to the Domestic Auto Industry for union debts, contract buyouts, pension deficits, technological upgrades, smaller engines, bio-fuel capable engines and the electric car revival, the flow of money continues to surge into the bottomless pit and will for awhile:

• _A new report by the Congressional Budget Office says that federal policies to promote EVs and plug-in hybrids will cost $7.5 billion through 2019._

• _These policies have "little or no impact" on gasoline consumption, according to the CBO._

• _Tax credits for consumers who buy vehicles like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt account for about one-fourth of the $7.5 billion._ [20]

Beyond a select few electric cars, there is a multitude of green technologies available on new cars for sale in the 21st Century. However, keep in mind they are made in manufacturing facilities all over the world that don't necessarily comply with sustainable environmental practices. Their internal combustion engines still run on fossil fuels. Their vehicle parts are still made overseas by way of cheap labour. The parts are shipped across the ocean in containers on oil burning cargo ships and then distributed along a network of highways, 18-wheelers and railways that spew out even more emissions on their way to assembly plants.

Assembly plants churn out tens of millions of new vehicles each and every year but at least they come with a little green sticker now.

_The data on global car production displayed on the Worldometers' counter is based on the latest statistics on worldwide car production issued by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers_ _(OICA)._

A formula based on the current data available, historical trends, and projections is used to estimate total cars produced in the current year.

_In 2012, for the first time in history,_ _over 80 million cars passenger_ [21] _cars will be produced in a single year (or 165,000 new cars produced every day)._

_After a 9% decline in 2009 (due to the 2008 global financial crisis), global car production immediately jumped back the following year with a 22% increase in 2010, to then consolidate at the current 3% yearly growth rate._ [22]

Stop global warming indeed.

New Vehicles and Green Technologies

In an industry first, General Motors' Chevy brand has created a green label for its cars and will roll out the sticker bearing environmental data next month starting with the 2012 Chevy Sonic.

The Ecologic label will be affixed to the driver's side rear window of Sonic sedans and hatchbacks in the US market by the end of February, GM and Chevy announced this week. The automaker also said it will place Ecologic stickers on all cars under the Chevrolet nameplate for the 2013 model year.

_The company is also increasing its public profile in emergency environmental efforts. GM made news when it promised to recycle the booms used to clean up the BP oil spill for making parts for the Volt. Then GM captured headlines again when the project turned out to be more successful than expected, diverting more than 212,000 pounds of waste from landfill._ [23]

What's good for the environment is also good for business.

Here's another politically driven eco-friendly mandate for those who don't drive a new vehicle. This one belongs to Canada.

Drive Clean

Drive Clean is Ontario's mandatory vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program. It improves our health and environment by reducing smog-causing pollutants through testing and repairing vehicle emissions systems.

Under Drive Clean, your vehicle must have an emissions test to renew your registration and licence plates. If your vehicle needs a test, you will be notified by the Ministry of Transportation in the registration renewal documents.

_As a consumer-protection measure, an emissions test is also required when buying or selling used vehicles with a model year older than the current calendar year. This helps ensure that consumers do not purchase a used vehicle with emissions problems._ [24]

The price for an emission test as of 2012 is $35.00. Not bad right? What if the vehicle fails the test? Well, a garage is allowed to charge up to $600.00 in emission-related repairs in order for it to pass. Then add $17.50 for another test to make sure it passes after the repairs are made.

Drive Clean has had little real impact on air pollution in Ontario. 2005 was Toronto's worst year on record for smog with a total of 48 smog alert days. The Ontario Medical Association estimated in 2005 that total air pollution (from all sources) would cause some 5,800 deaths and 17,000 hospital admissions that year. It also estimated that the direct health care costs of air pollution in Ontario were about $507 million, and the total economic cost of air pollution to be about $7.8 billion.

In late 2004, Norm Sterling, who served as the Environment Minister in Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris's cabinet, stated that Drive Clean had already had its greatest impact on air pollution and had served its purpose. Mr. Sterling is often referred to as the founder of Drive Clean. Drive Clean can only address a small fraction of the total automobile emissions problem, because all internal combustion vehicles burn fuels, which ultimately pollute the air (including most so-called "alternative" fuels).

_Greenpeace co-founder Robert Hunter (journalist) wrote in 1999 that Drive Clean "has turned out to be an agonizing bureaucratic nightmare that hits drivers with what is basically another tax and a huge hassle, while accomplishing -- in Environmental Commissioner Eva Ligeti's assessment -- 'minimal benefit._ [25]

Environmentally friendly or cash grab? Here's an update of what's going on behind the scenes as of June 2013 that may help with the answer.

Even though the Liberals already collect $11 million more than they need to operate the Drive Clean program, they're looking to fleece Ontario drivers for another $18.3 million, bringing the total of government fees for this program to $50 million a year.

Drive Clean was introduced by the former PC government in 1999 as a temporary measure to reduce smog in certain areas of the province with higher levels of pollutants. This program was then supposed to be phased out 10 years after its inception, as technology and fuel standards improved.

" _The facts don't lie. From 1999 to 2010, the pass rate for Drive Clean rose from 84% to 95%, meaning better emission-control technologies in vehicles have rendered the program redundant," Harris said. "Drive Clean has achieved its objective, so we have called on the Liberal government to begin the planned phase out of this program."_

Instead, the Liberals have been working to make the program permanent by signing a sole-sourced contract with Parsons Canada Limited to build, design and operate the Liberals' new computerized Drive Clean test, which has led to a spike in failures, not because of emissions-related problems, but because of a computer glitch.

Here is the article called:  Liberals Caught Plotting to Impose 18 Million in Drive Clean Fees, By Shane Buckingham.

The auto industry isn't the only one capitalizing on the global warming concept and your willingness to hand over extra money to feel 'green' and guilt-free.

Green Consumer Products

Green consumer products evolved in the 21st century to replace 'harmful' consumer products in reaction to the global warming concept we talked about earlier. Once people believed they could make a difference through the soaps and detergents they used, they purchased them by the billions.

In greenwashing, as in life, there are seven sins. There's the sin of the hidden trade-off, for example, the sin of vagueness, and the sin of no proof. So says sinsofgreenwashing.org, which takes on companies that offer seemingly green benefits — often at a hefty price tag — with little results. As the green trend continues, companies in almost every industry vie for a piece of the green market, even the embattled General Motors has taken a chance on its own green product initiative.

But as the field of green products grows, so does the number of impostors. The following is a list of some of the most perplexing green products out there-and an assessment of just how scammy they might be:

Clorox "Green Works" products

Green Works launched a little more than a year ago, under the pretense of bringing eco-friendly home-cleaning goods, such as all-surface and window cleaners, to the mass market. Several of these products, however, contain corn-based ethanol, which the environmental community has targeted for being neither cost effective nor eco-friendly.

_Clorox promises that this line is almost entirely "all-natural." But this term is relatively meaningless, as neither the EPA nor the FDA maintain a statute for what counts as a "natural" product..._ [26]

Here's something else you might find interesting. Their website lists the ingredients in their cleaning products. Scroll down the list and guess what you'll find in most, if not all of them. Ethanol. Imagine that. How 'green' of them.

Here's the Greed, I mean "Green Meets Clean" website for more information on the ingredients used in their products. The truth of this and everything else is hidden in plain view. Hidden under a whole pile of pretty green stickers, false claims and pictures of babies and dolphins on the main page to emotionally compel you to buy Chlorox.

Historically, consumers have shown blind faith by purchasing products with green stickers so they feel they are doing their part to stop global warming. But I hope you will consider the fact you cannot stop global warming by buying one product over another. Global warming is a natural phenomenon, as we'll discover shortly. However, you do have control over the amount of toxic waste and pollution you contribute to the environment. Do you care enough to stop what you're doing now and make sweeping changes to your lifestyle?

The solutions, ideas and innovations that will get us out of this mess will come from all of us – not a government, not a corporation, not another publicly funded committee and certainly not a product whose soul-intentions are to make money under the guise of environmentalism.

_The Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies conducted the telephonic survey_ _last summer to understand the environmental knowledge, attitudes, policy preferences, and behavior of the American people. Many said they are willing to pay more for "green" products. Half responded that they would "definitely" or "probably" pay 15% more for eco-friendly clothes detergent (51%) or an automobile (50%). Four in ten say they would spend 15% more on "green" computer printer paper (40%) or wood furniture (39%). Perhaps surprisingly, Americans who perceive their current financial situation as either "fair" or "poor" indicated they are just as willing as those more confident of their current finances to spend 15% more on detergent and wood furniture._ [27]

Energy Star Appliances, Rebates and Smart Meters

To see where we want to go we have to see (and admit to) where we've been.

We have been encouraged to purchase new items for our homes such as solar panels, upgraded windows, efficient appliances, toilets, faucets, etc. to stop global warming and to help save us money with the promise of tax rebates and incentives from our Governments.

Federal Tax Credits for Consumer Energy Efficiency

_Please note, not all ENERGY STAR qualified products qualify for a tax credit. ENERGY STAR distinguishes energy efficient products, which, although they may cost more to purchase than standard models, will pay you back in lower energy bills within a reasonable amount of time, without a tax credit._ [28]

However, as of 2012, the Federal Tax Credit ceased to exist.

There is currently no tax credit for the 2012 calendar year. Our representatives in Congress are working towards another energy tax bill. To review the information regarding the 2011 tax credit, please read the following paragraphs.

The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 includes tax credits for qualifying window and door replacements placed in service in 2011.

_The taxpayer is entitled to a tax credit in the amount of 10% of the cost (not to exceed $200) for all window replacements in 2011. They are also entitled to a credit in the amount of 10% of the cost (not to exceed $500) for all exterior door replacements in 2011. If replacing both windows and doors the taxpayer is entitled to a credit in the amount of 10% of the cost up to ($500) with the window credit maxing out at ($200)._ [29]

Here's the most updated list of Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency 2012/2013.

_At tax time, many consumers are cashing in on tax credits and rebates that come from making their homes more energy-efficient. One key tactic: Buy an appliance approved by the_ _government's Energy Star program_ _. But there is evidence that products with the Energy Star seal don't always live up to their billing._

"We find that not all of the products are as efficient as they claim to be," says Celia Kuperszmid-Lehrman, deputy home editor for Consumer Reports.

_The tax benefits are aimed at encouraging homeowners to replace outdated and energy-hungry furnaces and appliances._ [Or is it to encourage homeowners to keep spending and consuming more?]

_"We found, particularly, problems with refrigerators," she says of tests Consumer Reports conducted on certified products. The magazine reported that two of the refrigerators it tested used about 50 percent more energy than the numbers on their labels. Another pair used 39 percent more and 33 percent more._ [30]

It's as if we try to make a difference with one hand and then shoot ourselves in the foot with the other.

The Feds aren't the only ones in the green business.

In many cities and towns, various utility companies now install 'smart' energy meters on homes to regulate energy usage. It costs more, but they say the new meters will help the environment if we run our appliances during off-peak hours. In most places you don't have the option of getting one or not. It's automatic and you don't have a say in the matter. They are more efficient, they say.

• _Smart meters look similar to conventional meters but the display is digital and there are no dials. Unlike conventional electricity meters that can only measure the total amount of electricity used over a billing period, smart meters record how much and_ _when_ _electricity is used, typically hourly, and transmit this information automatically. Your smart meter will record your total electricity consumption hour by hour and send that information to Hydro One through a wireless communications network_.[31]

Can I ask a dumb question? If I use electricity during off peak hours I understand I will pay less due to lower demand during off-peak hours - because that's what they're telling me.

But won't a lot of other people subscribe to getting their energy during off peak hours too? If the demand goes up won't the price go up? Then what? Will off peak time switch to peak time?

Here is another dumb question since I'm on a roll. Smart meter conversation is a massive undertaking for cities and municipalities across North America and would require millions and millions of units to be manufactured. Wouldn't you like a piece of that contract? Who makes them and who profits from them?

Here's a writer that did his homework a few years ago and learned the answers to my questions long before I formulated them in my own mind. Let's see what he found out.

[October 2009] The Obama administration says these meters (and other parts of the grid that his $3.4 billion grant is funding) will create thousands of jobs. Plugging them in will save billions of dollars. Most people won't even notice the effects, but the overall plan -- which also included upgraded transformers and special sensors -- will make for a more efficient, less expensive power grid.

One hundred utility companies received grants from the feds, most of which they had to match or exceed with their own dollars. So the bottom line is that this federal largesse, part of the $787 billion stimulus package, will mean a total of $8.1 billion in grid-related spending.

While the good people at the Department of Energy tried to quantify every element of the story, one thing they didn't tabulate was the total number of these "smart meters" that utilities will be buying.

Well, I added it up. And I was shocked.

The answer is an astonishing 16.6 million. That's a lot of business for smart-meter makers. These 100 utilities are only a tiny fraction of the nation's 3,000 power providers, all of whom will be installing smart meters for their customers.

Here is one of the smart-meter makers:

Itron (Nasdaq)

Itron isn't a startup or a small-cap, it's a $2.3 billion company with a strong history of increased earnings. Its shares are trading at their typical valuation, so any investor who wades into these shares is betting on the smart-meter orders juicing Washington-based Itron's bottom line.

_Itron's long history of rising profits shows it is attentive to industry, and it's poised to snag a large percentage of the 16.8 million new smart meters the Energy Department's latest grants will help fund, as well as millions more from other power producers. At $200 each, the CenterPoint contract alone could mean $440 million in revenue and, at a 10% margin, would add $44 million to the bottom line -- three times what the company earned last quarter._ [32]

Here is the full article:  Obama's Latest 3.4 Billion Grant Means Big Profits for This Green Industry's Shareholders, by Andy Obermueller.

How do certain corporations get awarded Government's business and/or recommendations and/or contracts over another corporation? No, it's not through the fair process of formal proposals open for public tender. If you believe that then you really need to start over at the beginning. They may provide you with a means to quote on Government Business, but they already have all the suppliers they need tucked up in their back pockets.

Select Corporations/Organizations get contracts the same way certain legislation gets passed: by way of the squeaky wheel who gets the grease. The squeaky wheels are usually known as lobbyists – who pressure, influence and/or inspire the Government to select who gets the contracts.

Remember Dick Cheney's Haliburton Corporation back in Volume 1? Here's a reminder.

 Article: Dick Cheney's Haliburton: A Corporate Case Study

If you're wondering what powerful lobby groups they were connected to, here you go.

• US Coalition of Service Industries (CSI or USCSI)

• American Petroleum Institute (API)

• National Petroleum Council (NPC)

• The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)[33]

Suggested Theme Song

Uprising, Muse (2009)

Suggested Reading

 Green Illusions, Ozzie Zehner (2012)

Lobbyists and Global Warming

Tally of interests on climate bill tops a thousand  
Agriculture, higher ed, natural gas, you name it. Everyone's got a lobbyist  
By Marianne Lavelle

More than 460 new businesses and interest groups jumped into lobbying Congress on global warming in the weeks before the House neared its historic vote on climate change legislation, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of just-disclosed lobbying records shows.

The surge in the 12 weeks leading up to the June 26 vote meant that about 1,150 different companies and advocacy organizations were promoting their vision of how the nation should tackle climate change, a more than 30 percent cumulative jump over the 880 companies and associations that were storming Capitol Hill on the issue as the year began.

_It's no fluke that farm interests took center stage as the vote approached, considering that nearly 20 companies and organizations that produce or promote biofuels — including refiners and would-be refiners of plant matter from corn to wood chips to algae — started lobbying climate legislation for the first time._ (See Volume 1)

_But they were joined by a host of others. American Superconductor of Devens, Massachusetts, pushed for the electricity grid modernization in the bill — a move that would enhance the market for its superconductor wires, which the company says can carry ten times the power of traditional copper cables and potentially double the power capacity of wind turbines. Electric grid investment also was a primary goal for PickensPlan, the advocacy project of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, which joined the lobbying fray in the second quarter._ [34]

Here is the  link for the full article.

Alas, the web of politics, big business, global finance and global warming is as intertwined as ever. Let's take a look at some environmental disasters to see the role both government and big business played in each and every one of them.

Environmental Disasters

Remember we spoke of Global Finance in Africa and the exploitation of her natural resources to supply the world's thirst for power?

Environmental experts have warned of an environmental crisis in the Oil rich areas in Western Uganda if the current level of depletion of natural resources is not checked.

Natural resources conservationists from government and the private sector have said the deteriorating environmental situation in the Albertine graben could cause a humanitarian crisis in future if no concrete action is taken now to stop it.

_Several environmental experts have also been warning that the oil exploration activities could exacerbate the environmental degradation if concrete measures are not put in place to prevent the oil waste from contaminating the water sources._ [35]

I briefly brought up the 1989 Exxon Valdez catastrophe earlier, which was the most devastating oil spill in our history at an estimated 700,000 barrels of crude oil. The massive BP/Deepwater Horizon spilled surpassed that at over 4 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of New Mexico in 2010 and now reigns as environmental disaster champion.

If we look at the cumulative damage caused by man's manipulation of the planet, perhaps we'll realize that we are at a crossroads as a species. We can no longer wait for things to get better. We cannot hope our future generations will make it all better and we certainly cannot rely on our governments to make it better.

According to Time Magazine, here are the Top Ten Environmental Disasters. Note the BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster hadn't had a chance to make the list yet. I have copied the text from the online article so you don't have to bounce back and forth for the information in each link. The link for the full article is provided at the end of the section.

Chernobyl

On April 26, 1986, one of the reactors at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine exploded, resulting in a nuclear meltdown that sent massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere, reportedly more than the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That radiation drifted westward, across what was then Soviet Russia, toward Europe. Since then, thousands of kids have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and an almost 20-mile area around the plant remains off-limits. Reactor No. 4 has been sealed off in a large, concrete sarcophagus that is slowly deteriorating. While the rest of the plant ceased operations in 2000, almost 4,000 workers still report there for various assignments.

Bhopal

Around midnight on Dec. 2, 1984, an accident at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, resulted in 45 tons of poisonous methyl isocyanate escaping from the facility. Thousands died within hours. More followed over subsequent months — about 15,000 in all. In total, about half a million people were affected in some way. Many of those who survived suffered blindness, organ failure and other awful bodily malfunctions. A shockingly high number of children in the area have been born with all manner of birth defects. In 1989, Union Carbide paid out about half a billion dollars to victims, an amount the afflicted say is not nearly enough to deal with the decades-long consequences. Bhopal remains the worst industrial disaster ever.

Kuwaiti Oil Fires

As the 1991 Persian Gulf War drew to a close, Hussein sent men to blow up Kuwaiti oil wells. Approximately 600 were set ablaze, and the fires — literally towering infernos — burned for seven months. The Gulf was awash in poisonous smoke, soot and ash. Black rain fell. Lakes of oil were created. As NASA wrote, "The sand and gravel on the land's surface combined with oil and soot to form a layer of hardened 'tarcrete' over almost 5 percent of the country's area." Scores of livestock and other animals died from the oily mist, their lungs blackened by the liquid.

Love Canal

In 1978, Love Canal, located near Niagara Falls in upstate New York, was a nice little working-class enclave with hundreds of houses and a school. It just happened to sit atop 21,000 tons of toxic industrial waste that had been buried underground in the 1940s and '50s by a local company. Over the years, the waste began to bubble up into backyards and cellars. By 1978, the problem was unavoidable, and hundreds of families sold their houses to the federal government and evacuated the area. The disaster led to the formation in 1980 of the Superfund program, which helps pay for the cleanup of toxic sites.

Exxon Valdez

On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef in the pristine waters of Alaska's Prince William Sound. The first of what would turn out to be 10.8 million gal. of oil began to spew forth into the cold waters. It would eventually spread almost 500 miles from the original crash site and stain thousands of miles of coastline. Hundreds of thousands of birds, fish, seals, otters and other animals would perish as a result, despite the mobilization of more than 11,000 people and 1,000 boats as part of the cleanup. While the Exxon Valdez oil leak is considered to be the largest man-made environmental disaster in U.S. history, the Gulf of Mexico spill may eventually surpass it in severity.

Tokaimura Nuclear Plant

On Sept. 30, 1999, Japan's worst nuclear accident happened in a facility northeast of Tokyo. Three workers at a uranium-processing plant in Tokaimura, then the center of the Japanese nuclear-power industry, improperly mixed a uranium solution. A blue flash heralded trouble. As TIME wrote, "One [worker] was knocked unconscious. Within minutes, the others were nauseated, and their hands and faces were burned bright crimson." Two ended up dying, and hundreds were exposed to various levels of radiation.

The Aral Sea

In early April 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon traveled to Central Asia, where he laid eyes upon a "graveyard of ships" — rusting fishing trawlers and other vessels stranded in a desert that stretched for miles in all directions. It was the Aral Sea ... or what used to be the Aral Sea. Situated between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the Aral was once the fourth largest lake on earth, as big as Ireland. Since the 1960s, however, when Soviet irrigation projects diverted several of its source waterways, the Aral has shrunk 90%. What was once a vibrant, fish-stocked lake is now a massive desert that produces salt and sandstorms that kill plant life and have negative effects on human and animal health for hundreds of miles around. Scores of large boats sit tilted in the sand — a tableau both sad and surreal.

Seveso Dioxin Cloud

In July 10, 1976, an explosion at a northern Italian chemical plant released a thick, white cloud of dioxin that quickly settled on the town of Seveso, north of Milan. First, animals began to die. As TIME wrote about a month after the incident, "One farmer saw his cat keel over, and when he went to pick up the body, the tail fell off. When authorities dug the cat up for examination two days later, said the farmer, all that was left was its skull." It was four days before people began to feel ill effects — including "nausea, blurred vision and, especially among children, the disfiguring sores of a skin disease known as chloracne" — and weeks before the town itself was evacuated. Residents eventually returned to the town, and today a large park sits above two giant tanks that hold the remains of hundreds of slaughtered animals, the destroyed factory and the soil that received the largest doses of dioxin.

Minamata Disease

For years, residents of Minamata, a town located on Kyushu (Japan's most southwesterly island), had observed odd behavior among animals, particularly household cats. The felines would suddenly convulse and sometimes leap into the sea to their deaths — townspeople referred to the behavior as "cat dancing disease." In 1956, the first human patient of what soon became known as Minamata disease was identified. Symptoms included convulsions, slurred speech, loss of motor functions and uncontrollable limb movements. Three years later, an investigation concluded that the affliction was a result of industrial poisoning of Minamata Bay by the Chisso Corp., which had long been one of the port town's biggest employers. As a result of wastewater pollution by the plastic manufacturer, large amounts of mercury and other heavy metals found their way into the fish and shellfish that comprised a large part of the local diet. Thousands of residents have slowly suffered over the decades and died from the disease. It has taken as long for some to receive their due compensation from the corporation.

Three Mile Island

"Nuclear Nightmare," screamed the April 9, 1979, cover of TIME magazine. On March 28, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor near Harrisburg, Pa., partially melted down. Coming two weeks after the release of the Jane Fonda film The China Syndrome, the Three Mile Island incident became the natural outlet for fears about the nuclear-power industry. The ironic thing is that while it has become known as one of America's worst nuclear accidents, nothing much really happened. No one died, and the facility itself is still going strong. While the near meltdown is often cited as the reason no new nuclear plant has been built in America in the past 30 years, the industry had begun to slow down construction before Three Mile Island ever happened.

The Time.com article was written in 2010, before the author could realize nuclear power would increase in the near future, not slow down, as written.

Here is the full Time article with full credit to its author,  Gilbert Cruz: Top 10 Environmental Disasters (as of May, 2010)

Want proof nuclear power is on the upswing? This comes direct from the horse's mouth in 2013: The Nuclear Energy Institute.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise 28 percent by 2040, less than 1 percent each year. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity for our homes and continued economic growth.

Maintaining nuclear energy's current 20 percent share of generation would require building one reactor every year starting in 2016, or 20 to 25 new units by 2040, based on DOE forecasts.

Nuclear Energy is Clean Energy?

Although the U.S. leads in quantity consumed, Nuclear energy is used all over the world in the 21st Century, as an efficient way to fuel the growing demands of a global population. And, as you've seen, the U.S. Department of Energy plans to construct 20-25 new nuclear reactors to power its people over the next 30 years.

Here is one perspective about the benefits of nuclear power.

Nuclear energy is the world's largest source of emission-free energy. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear energy in place of other energy sources helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain. Of all energy sources, nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment, including water, land, habitat, species, and air resources. Nuclear energy is the most eco-efficient of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity relative to its environmental impact.

Nuclear power plants were responsible for nearly half of the total voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions reported by U.S. companies in 1998, the Energy Information Administration reported on January 4, 2000. Emission reductions from nuclear energy usage reported by the electric power sector increased by 43 percent from an estimated 70 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent for 1997 to 100 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent for 1998. That 100 million metric tons equals 47 percent of the 212 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions reported nationwide, according to EIA. Between 1973 and 2000, nuclear generation avoided the emission of 66.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 33.6 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

_Each year, U.S. nuclear power plants prevent 5.1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 2.4 million tons of nitrogen oxide, and 164 million metric tons of carbon from entering the earth's atmosphere._ [36]

That's the positive spin on nuclear power. Here's a look at who has them all.

Number of reactors in operation, worldwide, 2012-07-02 (IAEA 2012, modified)[37]

One plus one must equal two then, correct? For all intents and purposes, the U.S. should be leading the world in the clean up of carbon emissions according to the benefits of nuclear power and the fact they have far more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, right?

Fudging the Stats

Here's what four out of hundreds of 2012 headlines stated about the great job the U.S. was doing about the clean up of carbon emissions:

• A 20 year low in carbon emissions, The New York Times

• U.S. cuts greenhouse gases despite do-nothing Congress, Money.CNN.com

• An American Triumph: U. S. Carbon Emissions in 2012 Fall 4% and 12%...

• U.S. Carbon Emissions in Surprise Drop...

Here's what the headlines didn't state:

... _[I] t's apparently been easy for analysts and media alike to take the EIA information to the final level of misinformation, trumpeting that CO2 levels have fallen to their lowest levels in 20 years or that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen sharply._

_The claim is wrong, because to get to greenhouse gas emissions overall, all the non-energy-related emissions sources also need to also be included._ [They were not]

The article is detailed and comprehensive, and I recommend it in its entirety. The 'EPA: Environmental Protection Agency, a relatively reliable source of information was nowhere near these claims yet some of the U.S.'s most trusted media outlets ran with it anyway (New York Times, CNN). Which just goes to show us all, we can't take the easy way to knowledge – not if you want the truth.

The information about the 'reduction' came from a graph from the EIA: Energy Information Agency. They are an information generator.

The writer goes on to explain that several emission categories were left 'out' of the calculations that produced the so-called 'reduction'.

Methane, flaring, and biomass emissions not included in the primary EIA numbers mean those numbers don't fully reflect energy-related GHG emissions.

_According to the official U.S. GHG emissions inventory, the non-energy-related emissions (from agriculture, logging, other land use changes, etc.) represent another ~20 percent of the total..._ [Not included]

The author concludes the article with this:

U.S. major media and others have been trumpeting a false meme of declining U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, spinning off from EIA data that actually shows a much narrower trend.

While the primary EIA data represents a large, very specific piece of the overall U.S. emission inventory, it's fundamentally misleading to inflate its importance. Nonetheless, this seems to have been done regularly by the EIA itself, and to an even greater degree by downstream users of EIA information.

The full article can be found here:  Why Claims About Reductions of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Misleading, by Kevin Matthews, December 2012

Keep asking questions, keep gathering wisdom and keep searching for the truth. Those with hidden agendas produce much of what we see, and it can be untrue, it can be inaccurate and in many cases, is propaganda.

Here are a few claims about nuclear power you may want to research for yourself.

• _"_ _Nuclear power plants emit no CO2"._ _Cheney was quite unambiguous about this one: he told CNN on 8 May that nuclear power "doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all". This is clearly nonsense. CO2 is emitted in all phases of the nuclear cycle, particularly in uranium mining, milling and power plant construction. If the whole fuel cycle is taken into account, nuclear power emits 4-5 times as much CO2 as renewable energy sources._

• _"Nuclear power is cheap."_ _The NEI claim that the "production costs" for nuclear power are cheaper than for all other major power sources. However, production costs include only the costs for fuel, operations and maintenance. The large capital costs involved in nuclear power are not included. These costs were so high that the nuclear utilities were considered unable to compete after deregulation, and so were bailed out by consumers for their "stranded costs"._

• _"Nuclear waste is only produced in small quantities."_ _Richard Rhodes, author of "Nuclear Renewal" and "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", claimed recently that "nuclear systems produce less than 1,000 metric tons of high- and low-level waste per plant per year". He clearly forgot to mention the uranium mill tailings, which are also radioactive and can amount to 100,000 metric tons per nuclear power plant per year, as can be seen from WISE Uraniumís Nuclear Fuel Balance Calculator._

• _"The solution for nuclear waste is a single permanent repository"._ _Cheney said, "The French do this very successfully and safely in an environmentally sound, sane manner." No country in the world has yet made a definite decision on a permanent high-level waste repository - certainly not France, where they must first construct at least two laboratories to research into the possibilities. So far, they have only chosen one of the laboratory sites, at Bure, where they have dug about 40 meters of the 490-metre main access shaft as of 30 April 2001. The nuclear waste question remains the hardest question of all for the nuclear industry. Transporting it to a central repository creates extra dangers (the transports have been called "Mobile Chernobyl") while the safety of the repository has yet to be proven._ [38]

Time to remember the fundamental law of existence, especially as it relates to nuclear energy – the law of cause and effect.

For every action (power generation) there is a reaction (fallout).

All we need to do is look to the Japan Nuclear Disaster of 2011 for proof it's not as wonderful as they would have us believe. The World Nuclear Association states there were no adverse affects on the human population. Do you believe it?

Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Disaster of 2011

The following information is by the  World Nuclear Association.

• _Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011._

• _All three cores largely melted in the first three days._

• _The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases in the first few days. Four reactors are written off - 2719 MWe net._

• _After two weeks the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition but no proper heat sink for removal of decay heat from fuel. By July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Reactor temperatures had fallen to below 80ºC at the end of October, and official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid December._

• _Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units._

• _There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes to ensure this. Government nervousness has delayed their return._ [39]

Here is a website from an organization called The Watchers, who are not politically or corporately affiliated to an agenda, yet have provided a compilation of articles on nuclear power's fallout across the globe.

If you are unable to access that – especially because there is a media blackout from sources within Japan, here is an article that backs up what many people fear, which is the widespread radioactive contamination of our oceans, from nuclear power plants.

[June 2012] The May 29th issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that fish caught off the California coast in 2011 by researchers from Stony Brook University in New York were contaminated with radioactive waste from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power facility. The radioactive isotopes cesium-137 and cesium-134 were found in blue fin tuna at levels ten times higher than in the years prior to the accident, roughly four months after the waste was released into the ocean. Seven months after the accident, Japan's Fisheries Agency reported broad-spread radioactive contamination (up to 100 percent) in fish caught both in Japanese coastal waters and hundreds of miles away.

Problems with Radioactive Waste Predate Fukushima

Even before Fukushima, fish have been shown to carry radioactive waste from the nuclear industry. Tests of salmon from six British supermarkets revealed contamination by the radioactive isotope technetium-99, which has also been found in lobster and shellfish, and has been traced to Britain's Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant, even though the fish were raised hundreds of miles away.

According to James Waczewski of Florida State University, author of Legal, Political, and Scientific Response to Ocean Dumping, the United States has dumped an estimated 112,000 containers of long-lived radioactive nuclear waste into the Pacific and Atlantic oceans at 30 different sites. A U.S. Senate ruling has since imposed a moratorium on this practice, but nuclear power plants continue to discharge radioactive waste-water into the world's oceans daily.

No Fish from the Ocean Is Protected

Because ionizing radiation from nuclear waste is a carcinogen, radioactivity in fish is a disturbing reality. Yet even without the Fukushima disaster, the world's fish supply has become a dubious source of nutrition. Over the last decade, many Americans, coaxed by their doctors and by literature from public health organizations, have made the switch from red meat to fish, which they were told is both heart healthy and good for brain function. Health books and magazines have advised readers that fish is not just healthy but may afford them a slimmer figure, greater intellectual prowess, reduced risk of heart disease, and even glowing and radiant skin, among other benefits. At least one popular author has advised readers to consume fish twice a day. Yet there is a growing body of evidence in the scientific literature that challenges this advice.

_Although we seldom see the waste floating on the surface of the oceans, if we're willing to test it, we find that sea life has become our proverbial "canary in the coal mine," clearly revealing the hidden truth of all that has infiltrated the world's oceans. Some bodies of water are vastly more polluted than others, but one toxin, mercury, permeates the world's oceans to such a degree that no fish (and no one who eats fish) is protected._ [40]

Update July 2013: Washington Post:  Masao Yoshida, manager of the Fukushima atomic plant, dies at 58

Update July 21, 2013: Huffington Post Green Canada:  Fukushima Plant Admits Radioactive Water Leaked into the Sea

It took two years for the fallout to become headlines in popular media.

Furthermore, if you still choose to believe there is no cause for immediate concern, let's revisit Chernobyl to add a few more ingredients to the toxic pie we all take a piece from.

Chernobyl 1986

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor that occurred on 26 April 1986 was the most serious accident ever to occur in the nuclear power industry. The reactor was destroyed in the accident and considerable amounts of radioactive material were released to the environment.

The accident caused the deaths, within a few weeks, of 30 workers and radiation injuries to over a hundred others. In response, the authorities evacuated, in 1986, about 115,000 people from areas surrounding the reactor and subsequently relocated, after 1986, about 220,000 people from Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

_The accident caused serious social and psychological disruption in the lives of those affected and_ _vast economic losses over the entire region. Large areas of the three countries were contaminated with radioactive materials, and radionuclides from the Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere._

_Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2005 more than 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding the influence of enhanced screening regimes, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident._ [Most likely?]

"... _There is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure two decades after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure."_ [41] [No evidence?]

And what the United Nations says, we must believe? Do you believe there is no evidence of major health impacts two decades after the accident? Is the U.N. a trusted source of truth? The U.N. has been repeatedly attached to major scandals...from human sex slave trafficking to arms, gold and ivory smuggling. Do the research. Seek the truth.  United Nations Facing More Corruption Allegations.

Here is a completely different account of the Chernobyl fallout:

Suggested Reading

 Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Written by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko. Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger , Volume 1181, December 2009[42]

The remarkable thing about the above book is the disturbance it caused in certain circles...here is one writer's quest to seek the truth:

[2010] Last week, a few alternative and environmental news outlets drew attention to a newly published science book that put the cumulative death toll of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident at more than a million—a story that had particular resonance on the 24th anniversary of the reactor meltdown, the book's publication date. But the story did not bleed out into the mainstream media, and even the progressive website Alternet seemed suspicious, calling the 1 million estimate an "astounding allegation" in its headline.

The number is dramatically higher than the estimate of 4,000 deaths presented in a 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Development Program—a figure that has often been criticized as being far too low and influenced by the IAEA's pro-nuclear agenda.

_Where is the truth here? It's an awfully long way from 4,000 to one million—996,000, in fact. If the truth is somewhere in between the two figures, neither one is of much help to people who are trying to decide whether new nuclear plants—such as those President Obama has proposed—are a safe energy source._ [43]

The World Health Organization must be a reliable source of information, right? Wrong.

Dig deeper. There is more information about WHO in Volume 5: Big Pharma vs. Health and Wellness, but here is a snapshot of a health crisis scare you may be familiar with that hopefully gets you a little suspicious of their claims and authority.

[2010] Last year the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the planet was in the throes of an influenza pandemic. Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the WHO, delivered the notice.

_Her announcement triggered large-scale panic buying of flu vaccines and anti-viral drugs such as oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza). According to the investment bank J. P. Morgan, the pharmaceutical companies did very nicely out of this health scare, profiting to the tune of $7 billion from the sale of vaccines alone._ [44]

J.P. Morgan? What a coincidence that a global financier is connected to global pharmaceuticals. But now we are going off topic so it's time to get back on track.

The information presented in this section was a tiny window into the harmful effects of nuclear energy on the environment when an accident happens. What about the nuclear waste from active, non-active or retired reactors from around the world?

Nuclear Waste Disposal

The highly radioactive nuclear fuel is removed from the reactor and at most sites this "spent" fuel is being stored temporarily in water-filled cooling pools. As the cooling pools of many reactors are rapidly being filled, many reactors may soon have to shut down due to a lack of storage space for the deadly waste.

According to estimates by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global amount of spent fuel was 125,000 tonnes in 1992, and this will rise to 200,000 tonnes by the year 2000, and to 450,000 by the middle of the next century. Yet, although a variety of disposal methods have been under discussion for decades -- including disposal in space -- there is still no solution for what to do with nuclear waste.

Most of the current proposed 'solutions' for dealing with nuclear waste involve burying it under ground in a special store with strong enough protection to stop its radioactivity escaping. The nuclear industry purports that after some form of processing, burial in the ground or the seabed, will be sufficiently safe. This philosophy was born largely under the pressures of having to convince a worried public that the nuclear industry knows how to dispose of its wastes. However, this is a false assurance.

To pretend, as the nuclear industry often does, that a few experiments, test bores or geological surveys is all that is needed to deal with radioactive waste is simply disingenuous or scientifically illiterate or possibly both. Adequate proof will take tens of thousands of years.

The two main dangers inherent in the burial of nuclear waste are air and water contamination.

Air Contamination

Explosive or slow releases of gases from an underground disposal site is theoretically possible. There is unfortunately no reliable way of estimating this danger - there are too many uncertainties concerning actual methods of burial and of possible chemical interactions within a real environment.

Water Contamination

This is generally taken as the most likely mechanism of pollution in connection with waste disposal in rock. Underground waters may come in contact with radioactive elements that have leached out from the waste and contaminate the drinking water of local and distant communities.

In addition to underground burial, various on-site storage schemes are being investigated. Of primary interest is the storage of the spent fuel in large steel or concrete containers. While on-site storage of spent fuel keeps the material at the point of its creation and reduces transportation risks, hundreds of communities around the world are threatened with de facto high level dumps on their doorsteps.

Plans also exist for consolidating containerized spent fuel at a few aboveground regional facilities, resulting in a huge number of road transports in containers not designed to withstand credible accidents.

The best solution for the future is that no more nuclear waste should be produced anywhere in the world.

• _During the next three decades, more than 350 nuclear reactors will be taken out of service. Yet more than 40 years after the first nuclear power plant started producing electricity the nuclear industry still has no answers on how to safely and cost effectively dismantle a reactor._ [45]

And yet, they will build more.

Suggested Movies

Into Eternity (2009)

The China Syndrome (1979)

Suggested Song

Radioactive, Imagine Dragons (2012)

Global Warming and Science

Overview

We all need to remember something when it comes to the scientific evidence of anything. It is a man-made tool of measurement used to make sense of the world we live in. Man is new. The earth is old.

**Science** : _the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation, theory and experiment._

Scientists are cool. They are willing to do the complicated work to help the rest of us humans understand our evolution and the intricate processes of the natural and planetary systems we live within.

However, as cool as Scientists are, they are human, and similar to all other not-so-good humans they can be bought and sold by the benefactors who need them to discover, propagate, manipulate and alter data - data that might be advantageous to those same benefactors. Remember climategate as discussed in a previous section?

**Benefactor** : sponsor, backer, financial supporter, patron

When the masses believe in certain 'scientific data', the politicians and their corporations are given carte blanche in power, public support, votes and tax dollars. It might be fair to say that the general population would not go against a government who spends some of its taxpayers' money to fight global warming on their behalf. And, as we've seen, going green costs money...lots of it.

But what if the earth was on it's own agenda regardless of science, humans, religion or green products?

The ice age is an example of the earth having its own warming agenda without human influence. Prior to the ice age, the earth was on its own agenda long before that.

10,000 years ago approximately one third of the earth's surface was covered in ice. We are living proof the earth warmed up enough for us to thrive and eventually, multiply. Were the rising temperatures supposed to STOP because _modern_ man arrived and learned how to measure it with a thermometer?

Even though we inhabit the earth it does not mean we have the power to control the earth's evolution. Despite what our species likes to believe, we are not the all powerful, all knowing beings we claim to be and the earth was on its own timetable long before the first human DNA evolved ...or was created.

With mainstream's barrage of climate change and global warming rhetoric and so-called proof, why haven't we moved into an interdependent mode of sustainability by now? Maybe it's because it's all a big façade to keep you right where they want you: Afraid and dependent on a system of control.

Although the recent summers of the early 21st Century have been amongst the hottest and driest on record across most of the U.S., the winter seasons, by extreme contrast, have been some of the coldest in recorded history. For example, Siberia in Russia reported readings of -70 degrees in January of 2001.

_Temperatures today are primarily measured over concrete surfaces compared to grassy ones years ago. We all know that concrete and asphalt absorb heat and this often results in higher afternoon temperatures, especially when we have conditions of very little wind. During a typical hot, summer day, high temperatures may be as much as 3-7 degrees warmer at the official airport or downtown locations compared to outlying rural areas._ [46]

Before we continue, understand I am not letting humans off the hook from _contaminating_ the earth. For that we are guilty. However, let's try to be objective about the state of the planet and who might be to blame because of it. Somewhere along the humans went from living in harmony with the planet for millions of years, to sucking the life out of it over the past one hundred years. Why?

As with all other living things it might be reasonable for us to consider the parasite/host relationship. If a parasite lives on a host body and the parasite begins to consume more than the host can supply, the host will eventually wither away and die. Maybe we already know this and it explains why we're searching for the ability to sustain life on _other_ planets, since we seem to be on a self-destructive course on this one. It is not by coincidence that Jupiter - within site of a satellite - is on the cover of each one of the Books of Change. They've been sniffing around one of Jupiter's moons – debating whether or not life is possible there – or was.

Here's a quote from the next movie I recommend:

" _Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague..."_

Suggested Movie

The Matrix (1999)

That description is accurate of what we've become. Will we continue or will we change? Do we have the power to change? If not, who holds it? Isn't it time we take our power back?

In Search of Another Planet

At its closest proximity in history (2003 according to space.com) Mars was over 38 million miles from here. NASA may have been the first to the Moon and Mars, but India, considered a developing Nation, is right behind them.

The Mars mission is slated to launch in November 2013 and cost about 4.5 billion rupee ($82 million), according to the Associated Press.

_India's Mars mission announcement comes on the heels of the landing of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity, which touched down on the Red Planet on Aug. 5. The $2.5 billion Curiosity rover weighs a ton and is the size of a Mini Cooper car. NASA expects the rover to spend at least two years exploring its landing site, Gale Crater, to determine if the region could have ever supported microbial life_.[47]

What a brilliant idea. Spend billions of global dollars to determine if another planet ever had life on it while we destroy real, living life on this one.

[2010] An international team of astronomers has discovered an exoplanet–one outside our solar system–that has a more Earthlike orbit than any alien planet discovered so far using the same technique.

The planet, called CoRot-9b, was discovered by the French-operated satellite CoRot, which has been in orbit since 2006. The spacecraft detected CoRot-9b by measuring the dimming of its star's brightness as the planet passed in front of it, a technique called "transit observation." The small dip in brightness allows the planet's size to be calculated. By measuring the amount of time it takes the planet to complete its orbit, researchers can determine the planet's distance from its star.

_The planet travels around its star every 95 Earth days, at a distance about half of that between Earth and the sun. This distance is still 10 times farther than any other planet discovered using this method. Its surface temperature is between -23 and 157 °C, so if CoRoT-9b was a terrestrial planet like Earth it could have liquid water on its surface, but it is made mostly_ _of hydrogen and helium and therefore is unlikely to support life._ [48]

If you visit NASA's website you can view all kinds of information about how they are working very hard for the betterment of humanity. That's a lofty goal that requires a lofty bank account.

The 2014 NASA budget as per a press release from their website states:

"Today, we unveil President Obama's Fiscal Year 2014 budget request for NASA -- a $17.7 billion investment in our nation's future. Our budget ensures the United States will remain the world's leader in space exploration and scientific discovery for years to come, while making critical advances in aerospace and aeronautics to benefit the American people.

"This budget focuses on an ambitious new mission to expand America's capabilities in space, steady progress on new space and aeronautic technologies, continued success with commercial space partnerships, and far-reaching science programs to help us understand Earth and the universe in which we live. It keeps us competitive, opens the door to new destinations and vastly increases our knowledge.

NASA's ground-breaking science missions are reaching farther into our solar system, revealing unknown aspects of our universe and providing critical data about our home planet and threats to it. Spacecraft are speeding to Jupiter, Pluto and Ceres while satellites peer into other galaxies, spot planets around other stars, and uncover the origins of the universe. The budget funds our amazing fleet of scientific spacecraft, including strong support for study of the Earth and its response to natural or human-induced changes. And on the heels of the most daring mission to Mars in history last year, provides funding to launch another mission to the Red Planet. We also will continue our steady progress to develop and conduct critical tests on the James Webb Space Telescope, leading to its planned launch in 2018."

Here is  NASA's press release for further information _._

Due to current, limited information I am unable to write about the environment on other planets, so until there comes a time that I may report from first-hand experience from Jupiter's moon Europa or from Mars, let's continue the environmental discussion here on earth.

120 Year Climate Study

No one argues that our weather has been very EXTREME over the last few decades, especially during the past several years. Most scientists believe that our global climate is changing, but is our weather being altered by Mankind's influence, or is it merely a part of a long-term climatological cycle?

According to our long-term charts, which date back to 600 B.C., there are numerous climatological cycles that influence our weather and other global events including global and national economies. For example, during "Warm-Wet" cycles, like those in the 1920s and the 1990s, we often saw above average global temperatures and precipitation. This situation often leads to bumper crops and very good worldwide economic conditions. However, when temperatures are warmer than average and precipitation falls to below normal levels, less favorable times, or even depression eras like those of the 1930s and the past several years are more likely. Cooler and drier phases often point to "calm" periods like the 1950s and early 1960s. Cycles that become too hot and dry or too cold and dry will often lead to very unfavorable periods, such as the one expected later century, near 2038. Only time will tell.

For many years, following widespread ICE AGE predictions back in the 1970s, we've heard that our planet is warming up "at an alarming rate". A study from the National Academy of Science claims that "global warming is real and has been strengthening since 1981." These scientists say that the leading cause of this latest warming is the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. They also state that by the year 2100, temperatures may increase by 2.5 degrees to as much as 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit above those of today.

Up until late 2002, much of the Northern Hemisphere north of Latitude 40 was actually becoming GREENER with less total ice. In fact, the average growing season had been extended by around 2 weeks based on satellite data at the time.

_BUT, now, we believe that temperatures are beginning to cool again, particularly in north- central Canada where this summer there was only about 2 weeks between damaging freezes from late June into mid-July. One of our Harris-Mann Climatology clients went fishing between July 10-13 in northwestern Saskatchewan and reported "piles of ice" still on the ground in the region and temperatures close to the freezing mark._ [49]

Here is the full article:  120 Year Climate Study, by Harris-Mann Climatology.

What about greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect? Hasn't smog and emissions, pollution and toxins caused the ozone layer to deplete, thereby forming a bubble over large urban centers – which contribute to global warming and climate change?

Good questions. Let's see if we can find some of the answers.

Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. The heat from the earth radiates outwards and is trapped in the atmosphere's gases. The process prevents the heat from evaporating into space and keeps it close enough to allow life on the planet to exist. It's a natural and necessary process. What isn't natural is the **enhanced** greenhouse effect modern man has accelerated because of his culture of consumption.

**Enhanced Greenhouse Effect** : _The Greenhouse Effect is an important, naturally occurring process that allows life to thrive on Earth. Humans are, however, causing warming to occur on a global scale by causing the release of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These additional greenhouse gases are responsible for altering the natural balance of the Greenhouse Effect. As more greenhouse gases are produced, they accumulate in the atmosphere, and are thus available to absorb long-wave counter radiation. More radiation is thus radiated back towards Earth..._ [50]

**Radiation** : can cause severe or fatal health problems to people who are exposed to it.

What most people don't realize is we have been exposed to earth and space produced radiation since the beginning of time. It's called natural background radiation and it's found in the soil, food and water supply in addition to airborne particles that permeate the air we breathe.

The biggest contribution to **man-made, harmful** radiation over the past several decades according to some scientists has been the use of x-rays, pharmaceuticals and household items like televisions and " _various products such as glassware that are glazed with uranium_."[51] Yes, we expose ourselves to radiation on purpose at our medical and dental checkups. They leave the room; put a lead blanket over us and zap us with radiation. Radiation therapy is used on cancer patients. But certainly it's a safe amount of radiation or they wouldn't be doing it, right?

Fossil fuels are what we use to propel our culture of mass consumption – and yet mainstream media screams headlines about the need to reduce carbon emissions to stop global warming. Everyone repeats the terminology but no one changes their behavior – perhaps because very few truly understand what those terms actually mean.

Fossil Fuels and Carbon Emissions

Science Daily seemed like a logical place to turn to bring you accurate, non-biased information about fossil fuels and carbon emissions, however, everywhere you look it seems as if the cure to global warming has a direct link to global finance.

The utilization of fossil fuels has enabled large-scale industrial development and largely supplanted water-driven mills, as well as the combustion of wood or peat for heat.

Fossil fuel is a general term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.

_The burning of fossil fuels by humans is the largest source of emissions of carbon dioxide, which is one of the greenhouse gases that allows radiative forcing and contributes to global warming._ [52]

"The largest source of emissions...which contribute to global warming." Ok, then I would assume there are journals and logs of intricate measurements somewhere to sustain such a claim, right? Isn't that what science does? Hypothesize and then prove before stating it as fact?

Oct. 17, 2011 — It is difficult to measure accurately each nation's contribution of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere. Carbon is extracted out of the ground as coal, gas, and oil, and these fuels are often exported to other countries where they are burned to generate the energy that is used to make products.

Here are sample of some of the headlines from the homepage of the Science Daily website to add to the confusion.

• _Will global warming be slowed by the introduction of a tax on carbon dioxide by Sweden and other western countries?_

• _The US is burning less coal due to shale gas production, however millions of tons of unused coal are being exported to the UK, Europe and Asia._

• _Emissions from consumption growth have exceeded carbon savings from efficiency improvements in the global supply chain of products consumed in the UK..._

They all say we have to stop burning the fossil fuels so we can stop carbon emissions and yet we see trillions of dollars from Nation Governments being spent on more natural resource extraction and exploitation.

Every time we burn fossil fuels such as gas, coal or oil, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. In a natural carbon cycle, carbon dioxide is re-absorbed by plants and trees. However, we are burning fuels where the carbon dioxide has been trapped under the earth's surface for millions of years, and we're doing it so quickly that plants and trees that are alive now have no chance of soaking it up (and it doesn't help that we're cutting down rainforests as well).

The effect of all this extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that the overall temperature of the planet is increasing (global warming). Whilst the average global temperature is increasing, on a day-to-day level the climate is changing in unpredictable ways (from floods and hurricanes to heat waves and droughts). To try and reduce the risk of ever more extreme weather, we need to reduce how much fossil fuel we are burning.

... _You may have seen carbon calculators on the internet that ask you about the food and products you buy because of the effect of your purchasing habits on your carbon footprint. The more energy-intensive the process of creating the food and products you buy, and transporting them to your door (or local shop), the more fossil fuels are burnt (and therefore the more carbon dioxide is released). However, measuring these indirect emissions accurately on a day-to-day basis is very difficult._ [53]

Safe to say they don't have a clue – but their scare tactics have resulted in off-shore bank accounts and a new world order of a very select wealthy few, while the rest of the human race, in varying degrees, scrounge around for the contaminated scraps.

In addition to coal burning facilities and mass transportation emissions, there are cities surging with nuclear generated power plants all over the world. The potential for radioactive spills and leaks is highly likely, as we've seen.

The nuclear waste buried deep into the earth's core will never naturally decompose and the countless nuclear weapon arsenals of the world's Militarized Countries could potentially deploy enough radiation to eradicate all life from sea to shining sea in an instant.

But, no one ever talks about that. We're stuck on carbon emissions and dirty oil as if they were the only causes of the breakdown of our earth's atmosphere.

Nuclear fallout is far more devastating than the extra kilowatts your old refrigerator uses off the grid or the exhaust your old vehicle spits out on the way to work every day. The large vehicles – planes, trains, cargo ships and transports - release far more carbon emissions than Mr. and Mrs. Smith's old minivan. But Wal-Mart won't stop shipping their goods and people won't stop buying bottled water and the auto industry cannot survive without the oil-gulping internal combustion engines. People are not ceasing to travel by jet, the militaries around the world have not grounded their Air Forces or tanks and they haven't stopped dropping bombs or dumping jet fuel into the atmosphere. But you can stop global warming by purchasing xyz. Right?

Let's connect a few more dots between Government, Science and the Environment and carbon emissions.

Several of the world's Nations entered into an agreement to reduce carbon emissions[54] in 1997 called the Kyoto Protocol.

The only problem was - one of the world's biggest polluters wouldn't ratify it and others wouldn't even consider it.

**Ratify** : to give formal approval to something, usually an agreement negotiated by somebody else, in order that it become valid or operative _._

Let's see if we can make some sense of this 21st Century political platform for the self-professes environmentally responsible Nations.

Kyoto Protocol

**The Kyoto Protocol** treaty was negotiated in December 1997 at the city of Kyoto, Japan and came into force February 16th, 2005.

_"The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."_ [55]

Why North America didn't subscribe to it

Why didn't the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

Officially, the Bush administration pointed to the exclusion of two large developing economies (China and India) as its rationale for reversing its prior position of promotion and leadership.

In contrast, European leaders accepted the need to commit to greenhouse gas reductions now while working to bring China and India in.

Other commentators have suggested that the administration's close alignment with the domestic energy companies may have also been a contributing factor to this reversal. Internal US State Department papers reveal that

_ExxonMobil had a direct influence on the US' rejection of the Kyoto Protocol._ [56]

Canada originally subscribed to the Kyoto Protocol but opted out in 2012.

Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change... Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets. The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty. The protocol...is aimed at fighting global warming. He said meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): "That's $1,600 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government".

_He said that despite this cost, greenhouse emissions would continue to rise as two of the world's largest polluters - the US and China - were not covered by the Kyoto agreement._ [57]

What happened to the politically affiliated Scientists who said we had to cut carbon emissions to stop global warming? What about the billions of dollars in bailout money already paid out for green auto initiatives in Detroit which were justified by the harmful effects of automotive carbon emissions? The environment isn't so important now that jobs and money are at stake. Or is that an election at stake?

The Kyoto Protocol was meant (for all intents and purposes as far as the public was concerned) to hold Nations accountable for harmful emissions and they were to reduce them within an agreed to time frame. And, since some of the world's biggest polluting Nations did not subscribe to it, it failed.

I am going to continue with global environmental agreements for a little bit longer. Although we are talking about the scientific side of environmental change, it is almost impossible to take the politics out of it. The Kyoto Protocol was not the only partnership connecting politics, science and the environment. There's more.

The Durban Agreement

[December 2011} Not a single tonne of carbon was saved. In the short term, the planet will benefit not one jot. Some are calling it a betrayal of both science and the world's poor. Yet the climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which finished early on Sunday morning, did rewrite the rule book for fighting climate change in one way. It forced major developing nations like China, Brazil and South Africa to accept the principle of future binding targets on their greenhouse gas emissions for the first time.

A bleary-eyed Chris Huhne, the UK's climate change secretary, hailed the deal, which came after three overnight negotiating sessions and a 36-hour conference overrun. "This is the first time we have seen major economies commit to take action demanded by the science," he said.

The conference agreed that by 2015 governments would finalise a "protocol, legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force" that would impose targets on all major emitters, rich and poor. It will probably enter into force by 2020, when existing voluntary targets end, though that is not part of the official deal.

The bad news is that the deal is a post-dated cheque. It won't do anything to help the climate in the next decade – a decade that scientists say is critical to arresting global warming and turning the world's energy infrastructure towards low-carbon sources. Every year, countries spend about a trillion dollars on energy infrastructure, and right now coal is still the fuel of choice.

It is also far from clear what the promised binding targets will be – that question went undiscussed here. Most accept that the poorest nations will not face absolute cuts to their emissions. Instead, they will cut their "carbon intensity": the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP, a reflection of how dirty their industries are.

... _In Durban, US chief negotiator Todd Stern said such promises were much more meaningful than the Kyoto protocol. But there are doubts. Independent modellers at Climate Analytics in Potsdam, Germany, say the pledges are wide open to governments cooking the books._

Their analysis of the loopholes ... suggests global carbon dioxide emissions in 2020 could soar above the widely quoted 55 billion tonnes. That is far in excess of the 44 billion tonnes that the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says is needed for a cost-effective route to staying below 2 °C of global warming.

For the full article please see,  Dangerous Decade: What follows the Durban Climate Deal, by Fred Pierce of the New Scientist.

There is another organized agenda on climate change and it should be included here. Some say it is a framework for sustainable economic development worldwide (sounds like a nice idea) and others say it's a way for the Global Elitists to mandate the takeover of lands and resources to do what they want with it. That would mean they are no longer accountable to the public by having to provide environmental sustainability reports for expansion projects, construction, resource depletion, the take-over of designated Aboriginal/Indigenous territories, ecological impact studies, etc.

Some Governments are calling their new agendas "Sustainability Initiatives", "Strategic Growth Plans" or something of that nature. One document from the U.N. describes Canada's Action Plan with regards to environmental management as an example. Please follow the trail of what comes after it and consider how trustworthy the U.N. is after what's it's been up to over the last few decades.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions

The Government of Canada Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change, described under Question 6, sets out a package of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in key sectors. The Plan includes a number of measures to develop and deploy emerging renewable and alternative energy sources to meet the demand for energy while decreasing emissions. The renewable and alternative energy industries have been extensively involved in the two-year consultation process. Action Plan 2000 captures many of the best ideas resulting from this process.

Specific initiatives to support the research, development and deployment of renewable and alternative energy technologies include:

• _Creating a Canadian transportation fuel cell partnership, which will involve fuel-cell suppliers, fuel providers, the automobile industry and government_

• _Encouraging the construction of biomass-based ethanol plants to increase the supply of ethanol-blended gasoline. This initiative could enable as much as 25 percent of Canada's total gasoline supply to contain 10 percent ethanol, a blend that is readily used in all cars_

• _Expanding the market for emerging renewable energy by increasing the Government of Canada's electricity purchases from emerging low- and non-emitting energy sources to 20 percent_

• _Providing financial incentives to stimulate the development and marketing of a targeted amount of emerging low- and non-emitting electricity capacity_

• _Installing emerging low- and non-emitting electricity technologies in Government of Canada facilities and properties_

• _Bolstering funding to the Renewable Energy Deployment Initiative program to increase the promotion of renewable energy technologies, such as solar and ground-source water-heating technologies, to the industrial sector_.

The full U.N. document can be found here.

Canada's Action Plan will increase the supply of ethanol? We covered that topic and I think it's safe to say it's not sustainable.

They will provide financial incentives to stimulate electricity-technologies? We covered that with the smart meters discussion and the Corporations who have profited by government sponsored contracts in the U.S.A already.

Still believe the Action Plans will benefit the average citizen or the earth's environment?

To add to the above direction of the new world's mandate, Canada made sweeping changes to their environmental protection legislation contrary to what the public demanded in 2012. They called it the "Long Term Prosperity Act" and that's up for discussion next under the umbrella of Bill C-38.

Canada's Bill C-38

[June 2012] Anyone concerned with tar sands pipelines, climate change, workers rights, unemployment insurance, Indigenous peoples' rights, women's rights, food security, Old Age Security, rural development and the Canadian economy needs to take action now.

What is Bill C-38?

Bill C-38, also know as the Omnibus Bill, is the "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act," introduced on April 26 to implement the 2012 Federal Budget. It introduces, amends, or repeals some 70 federal laws in a single bill, and the Conservative government has motioned to limit debate.

Critics, including former Conservative ministers, say it undermines democracy by repealing, amending or overhauling so many pieces of legislation in one bill, without allowing time for debate.

1. Bill C-38 guts environmental legislation and 'streamlines' the environmental review process to pave the way for rapid approval of industrial mega-projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in northern B.C., the Alberta tar sands, and Quebec's Plan Nord.

2. Various aspects of Bill C-38, including changes to the environmental assessment review process, violate the federal government's obligation to consult with First Nations and accommodate First Nation Treaty and Aboriginal rights.

_3. Bill C-38 amends the Coasting Trade Act to allow increased off-shore seismic_ testing _and drilling. Less than two years after such drilling was put on hold due to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Conservative government announced 905,000 hectares of Arctic waters open for bidding._

4. Bill C-38 implements new rules that will require most unemployed EI claimants to accept job offers at hourly wages significantly lower than their previous employment.

5. Bill C-38 will also make changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, Old Age Security, and will repeal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act - all of which are expected to depress wages, especially in already lower-paying jobs.

6. Bill C-38 makes changes to meat inspection regulations and cuts funding to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, weakening our protection from diseases like listeria, mad cow, rabies, and toxic poisoning.

7. Bill C-38 undermines food sovereignty by amending the Seeds Act and Plant Breeder Rights, eliminating enforcement of the Product of Canada label, and prioritizing trade deals that benefit multinational corporations instead of local farmers.

8. Bill C-38 officially withdraws Canada from the Kyoto Protocol reducing the federal government's obligations to report on climate change policies.

9. Bill C-38 dedicates millions of dollars to attack environmental groups and charities through audits on foreign funding. Environmental groups are being targeted, despite the fact that the Canada Revenue Agency records show environmental charities are not the biggest recipients of foreign funding.

_10. Bill C-38 includes amendments to the Employment Equity Act which eliminate the requirement that federal contractors apply employment equity provisions put in place to protect groups that have experienced discrimination, including women, Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and persons with disabilities._ [58]

Sadly, it passed into law a few days later despite widespread protests and petitions against it. Not enough people fought it. Not enough people made it their business to care.

[June 2012] VANCOUVER - The Wilderness Committee joins thousands of Canadians across the country in expressing deep disappointment at this week's passing of Bill C-38.

The federal omnibus budget bill passed Monday evening after a final debate in the House of Commons, and is now waiting on approval from the Senate.

" With 752 different clauses contained in the sprawling 425-page document, the bill represents a drastic shift in the Canadian government's attitude towards environmental protection. The decision to combine amendments to more than 60 pieces of legislation in a single bill has also raised serious concerns about the democratic process, as policymakers were not given adequate opportunity to debate and challenge individual elements.

" _This is a sad day for Canadian democracy. Our elected Prime Minister is acting more like a representative for big oil companies than for the people of Canada," said Ben West, Healthy Communities Campaigner._

"Bill C-38 seems tailored by industry lobbyists to make it easier to push through extremely controversial pipeline projects that would bring substantial risk to our rivers and our coast. History will not look kindly upon this government's actions," said West.

_Not only does the bill include a complete overhaul of federal environmental assessment legislation, it also eliminates vital protections for fish habitat, withdraws from commitments on climate action and reduces government oversight on potentially destructive industrial projects. In addition, these changes are being rolled out against a backdrop of major cuts to environmental agencies, which have traditionally played an essential role in protecting our air and water._ [59]

It would appear Canada is headed towards a global partnership with other Nations despite some of her citizens being against it. Still think it's all a conspiracy theory?

Agenda 21

_Agenda 21_ _is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regards to sustainable development. It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The "21" in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences. ...Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes_. (Wikipedia)

Here is a great article explaining what Agenda 21's hidden agenda may be:

What is Agenda 21, by Chris Carter, Canada Free Press, November 10, 2011

Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions, which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth...it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people... Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced...

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich stated during a recent campaign event that the United Nations was seeking to create an "extraconstitutional control" over the US with programs like Agenda 21... what is Agenda 21 and why has it taken nearly 20 years before this subject got national recognition?

Agenda 21 seeks to control populations through zoning and seizure of private property, strip national sovereignty, reduce the world population, even control our consumption of meat and air conditioning ... all in the name of the environment. And who can be against the environment, right?

Many Americans cringe at the mention of "global government" or "conspiracy." And often, conspiracy theories have little basis in fact. But we must recognize that it is a basic element of human nature to seek wealth and power, and that people throughout human history have conspired together to do so. Not all conspiracies are real, but they do exist. And Agenda 21 is a perfect example on a global scale.

From the report produced by the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, which was the predecessor to Agenda 21: "Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

Our Constitution explicitly protects our private property rights. No wonder President Clinton signed it into law without consent from Congress. In fact, those who drafted the plan considered it to be so toxic that they warned proponents not to use the term Agenda 21.

" _Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society," said J. Gary Lawrence, adviser to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development. "This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking [Agenda 21]. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."_ (As mentioned in the prior section.)

_Rather than defend against the disinformation campaign used to prop up Agenda 21, we must read the document and instead demand why the UN thinks it has any business subjugating the world under its authority when their record is full of epic corruption and humiliating failures._ [60]

There is much information about Agenda 21 out there so use your discretion to disseminate the information. Somewhere within that pile, within all the red tape, rhetoric, fixed data, lies, panic, ignorance, claims and hidden agendas is the truth.

Suggested Theme Song

People Help the People, Cherry Ghost (2007)

Politics Trumps Science: Experimental Lakes Area, Canada

The following story from Canada is another example of government exercising their power over science when the data doesn't suit their platform or agenda. It might add some weight to Agenda 21's agenda...read on.

May 2012, EDMONTON -- In media interviews following the recently announced cuts to the Experimental Lakes Area, two reporters said that they thought the project had been dead for some time, because they had heard little about the work in recent years. This is not the case.

Rather, the silence from ELA has been because of increasing pressure on government scientists not to speak publicly about their work, a tragedy in my view. The success of a democracy must rely heavily on an informed electorate, not on politically-filtered propaganda to support political agendas. Here are some of the more important studies since I left in 1989:

In the 1990s, new ELA experiments focused on the emission of greenhouse gases from newly constructed reservoirs and related changes to the mercury cycle. Several small-scale reservoirs became whole ecosystem laboratories. As a result, we now know that reservoirs contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but not as much as burning fossil fuels does. Reservoirs also invariably contaminate key fisheries with mercury, rendering fish inedible for decades.

Concerns about the effects of estrogen-like chemicals in water led to addition of a very small amount of estogenic hormone being added to a small ELA lake. Within two years, most of the male fish were feminized, and reproduction ceased. When hormone additions ceased, reproduction resumed and the fish recovered. The concentrations of hormone added were similar to those found in waters downstream of sewage outfalls, and one wonders about their impacts on other species, including homo sapiens. We need to understand the ecosystem scale impacts of hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals, but meager funding has not allowed such work to continue at ELA.

In short, the results of ELA experiments can have enormous economic implications. Our politicians must realize that science can influence prosperity in other ways than simply inventing gadgets to sell.

... _Only experiments at realistic whole lake scales can directly address important water policy questions. Wrong decisions can mean wasting billions of dollars on policies that do not work, or developments where profits are nullified by expensive mitigation later._

In ELA, Canada owns what one science reporter has called "the world's only ecological supercollider." For a country which worries constantly about its "world class" image, why would we want to eliminate such a unique and important facility?

[Author of article] David Schindler was ELA's first director.

The full article can be found here as  Closing ELA penny-wise, pound foolish.

As of May 2013, there was still an ongoing fight to save it from permanent closure.  Closure of Experimental Lakes Area part of assault on Science, The Toronto Star

Removal of the evidence changes everything. Here are two more articles that illustrate what happens when politics trumps science over environmental issues:

Democracy depends on informed opinion. Informed opinion relies on understanding all the evidence, not just that which supports a political objective or ideology. Science provides much of the best evidence, without regard to political agendas or ideology.

The only scientific evidence the Mr. Harper wants the public to know about is that which supports his political objectives and ideology. That's not science, that's propaganda.

The Harper government has embarked on a systematic program to impede and divert the flow of scientific information to Canadians through two major strategies. The first involves the gutting of programs and institutions whose principal mandate is the collection of scientific evidence. Examples of this include:

• _Cutting the mandatory long-form national census._

• _Major budget reductions to research programs at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Library and Archives Canada, the National Research Council Canada, Statistics Canada, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada._

• _Decisions to close major natural and social science research institutions such as the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, the National Council of Welfare and the First Nations Statistical Institute._

• _Closing of The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, Nunavut_ [61]

And from Canada's most respected Naturalist, Mr. David Suzuki adds his perspective:

 Shutting down the Experimental Lakes Area doesn't make sense

[2012] We can't live without clean water. Canada is blessed with an abundance of lakes and rivers and has a global responsibility to manage them well. But if we really want to protect freshwater supplies and the ecosystems they support, we must understand how human activity and natural disturbances affect them.

_The world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario has served as an outdoor laboratory for this purpose since 1968..._ _Over the past 45 years they've taught us about the impacts of acid rain, mercury pollution, nanoparticles, nitrogen overload, climate change, fish farming, and many other issues. That's about to end._

The federal government announced it will close the unique facility in 2013. It's an odd decision, especially considering that it costs just $2-million a year to operate—one-tenth the cost of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's security detail and about the same amount the government spent during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto to build a tourism pavilion with a fake lake. To make matters worse, it will cost taxpayers $50 million to shut the ELA down.

The timing is also odd. The ELA is being shut down as the government eviscerates laws and regulations designed to protect freshwater and marine habitat and resources with its omnibus budget bill. Included in the bill are changes or cuts to the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, and Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and a complete gutting and rewriting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Canada is on the environmental hot seat while the U.S. is on the financial hot seat. For those of you from other parts of the world, I challenge you to put your governments under a microscope to see what role they play in the new World Oligarchy of Prosperity. The U.S. supplies global military services; China supplies cheap labour for global goods and Canada supplies global natural resources. Soon, Africa, the Middle East and the Arctic will supply natural resources to the global machine. Then what?

These stories make up the current state of affairs – a tapestry of 21st culture. There's no conspiracy theory here - it is what it is - but we can change it.

Suggested Reading

Wisdom of the Elders, Peter Knudtson, David Suzuki (1992)

Environmental Change and You

With a basic understanding of the political and scientific sides of the global warming / climate change discussion under our belts, let's consider the role we play in all of it.

We don't need to lay blame to move forward. Blame serves no purpose because as long as we're busy pointing our finger we are wasting time. If you really need a source of blame then go look in the mirror. Ouch, I know that hurts. But it is our collective culture of mass consumption, mass expansion, growth and so-called progress that is stripping the earth of its ability to provide us with a healthy environment to thrive upon.

Apathy and indifference to the global machine is what's killing our planet, it's not humans. Humans have lived here for millions of years. Something has changed. Our minds have changed.

To borrow from the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, consider the human story we are all participating in - as a first step towards understanding how we arrived at this moment in our evolution. For some context, the excerpts were taken from a conversation between a teacher ( _in italics_ ) and a student (in **bold** ).

How We Came to Be This Way

" _Man's destiny was to conquer and rule the world, and this is what he's done – almost. He hasn't' quite made it, and it looks as though this may be his undoing. The problem is that man's conquest of the world has itself devastated the world. And, in spite of all the mastery we've attained, we don't have enough mastery to stop devastating the world – or to repair the devastation we've already wrought. We've poured our poisons into the world as though it were a bottomless pit – and we go on pouring our poisons into the world. We've gobbled up irreplaceable resources as though they could never run out – and we go on gobbling them up. It's hard to imagine how the world could survive another century if this abuse, but nobody's really doing anything about it. It's a problem our children will have to solve, or their children._

_All this damage has come about through our conquest of the world, but we have to go on conquering it until our rule is absolute. Then, when we're in complete control, everything will be fine. We'll have fusion power. No pollution. We'll turn the rain on and off. We'll grow a bushel of wheat in a square centimeter. We'll turn the oceans into farms. We'll control the weather – no more hurricanes, no more tornadoes, no more droughts, nor more untimely frosts. We'll make the clouds release their water over land instead of dumping it uselessly into the oceans. All the life processes of this planet will be where they belong – where the gods meant them to be – in our hands. And, we'll manipulate them the way a programmer manipulates a computer_.

There is, however, one element of the story that you've left out, and we need it to complete your culture's explanation of how things came to be this way."

**What element is that** _?_

" _I think you can figure it out. So far we have this much: The world was made for man to conquer and rule, and under human rule it was meant to become a paradise. This clearly has to be followed by a 'but'. It has always been followed by a 'but'. This is because the Takers have always perceived that the world was far short of the paradise it was meant to be_."

I looked at him blankly.

" _There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will act like lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now_.

... _And if you had the strange notion that there might be a set of laws about how to live, where would you look for it?_

I don't know.

Would you look into the heavens?

No.

Would you delve into the realm of subatomic particles?

No.

If there is a law pertaining to life, where will we find it written?

I suppose in human behaviour.

I have amazing news for you. Man is not alone on this planet. He is part of a community, upon which he depends absolutely. Have you ever had any suspicions to that effect?

You don't have to be sarcastic.

What's the name of this community of which man is only one member.

The community of life.

_Bravo. And when you're on the brink of extinction and want to live for a while longer, the laws governing all of] life [not just human life] might conceivably become relevant_." [[62]

Most reasonable people with a degree of common sense can conclude climate change (aka global warming) is a result of a complex set of factors. And, aside from placing our recycle and compost bins at the curbside once a week, most reasonable people know we need to do more to clean up our environment than purchasing products with a little green sticker. We know this, yet we continue to perpetuate an unhealthy cycle by our lifestyles and by our daily habits and choices.

And so we have the current paradox we find ourselves in. We go on looking _outward_ for someone else to fix our environmental problems. We blame corporations, we sue organizations or we un-vote another politician.

Our current planetary reality is not pretty but it's our own fault. We stopped thinking for ourselves, doing for ourselves and working for ourselves. We contribute to our own demise each and every day by the way we continue to live – which is go to work for someone else so we can pay the bills for worthless material possessions. We eat unhealthy foods, we don't get enough sleep and yet we get up and do the exact same thing tomorrow. We repeat this cycle all over the world in industrialized and now developing nations. We are not free. We are slaves to the grind and have been for a long time. We have been asleep in our own lives and have handed over our fates to external forces.

If we wake up - we can change. It's what we do today and tomorrow that matters now, not what we did yesterday. So - how do we change?

You don't have to be a full time activist in the environmental movement to make a positive impact, make a difference or inspire change. You can start small with something as easy as making better decisions about what you spend or not spend your money on.

Currently we blindly trust the contents and ingredients contained in our water and food supply. We believe they are healthy enough to consume without harming us. We trust the government regulations that are supposed to keep our water and food supply fit for consumption. However, I think we're learning that Governments don't care about us beyond what we can do for them.

It's time we start paying attention to what we're putting into our bodies. If the previous section on environmental disasters doesn't alarm you enough to jump-start a change in the status quo, perhaps the following sections on the global water supply will.

The Manipulation of Water

Bottled Water

Do you need bottled water to survive? Will you die without it? Do you have access to drinking water from your taps at work and at home? If you do not have access to potable (fit for drinking) water and bottled water is the only way you can get it then you are exempt from the conversation. For the rest of you, pay attention to what your habit of convenience is doing to your local environment not to mention your health.

• _The federal government does not mandate that bottled water be any safer than tap water – the chemical pollution standards are nearly identical (EWG 2008). In fact, bottled water is less regulated than tap water._

• _It takes an estimated 2,000 times more energy to produce bottled water than to produce an equivalent amount of tap water (Gleick 2009)._

• _Bottled water production and transportation for the U.S. market consumes more than 30 million barrels of oil each year and produces as much carbon dioxide as 2 million cars (Gleick 2009)._ [63]

When we stop buying bottled water, they will stop producing it. When the producers no longer draw from the earth's resources for the plastic, you will have played a part in slowing down the progress of pollution. This was not part of our lifestyle 20 years ago. We can go back to not having it.

_In 2011 Americans purchased 9.1 billion gallons of bottled water_ 34.4 billion liters which is estimated at 222 bottles for each person in the country for a year]. _The US remains the largest consumer of bottled water in the world, with China and Mexico in the second and third spots._[ [64]

When pollution slows down, the chances of becoming sick from the affects of a contaminated environment will become less prevalent. Not everyone can say no to bottled water due to _necessity_ , however those who buy it for _convenience_ can. It won't cost you money, it won't cost you time and it won't cost you labour. Just stop.

That's the bottled water story. What about the tap water story? Well, to keep it clean enough to drink (from the contamination we put into it on a daily basis) we have to process and filter it before we can drink it. The dirtier the water, the harder it is to clean up. And, the harder it is to clean up the more expensive it is. And the more you use the more all of the above becomes affected.

Suggested Video

The Story of Bottled Water

Industrialized Water Supply

Bottled water is only one of the environmental-health issues created in the 21st Century. Let's take a look at overall water usage by industrialized nations to gain a broader perspective of how much of this precious resource is consumed and for what purpose.

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70% of all water consumption, compared to 20% for industry and 10% for domestic use. In industrialized nations, however, industries consume more than half of the water available for human use. Belgium, for example, uses 80% of the water available for industry.

Freshwater withdrawals have tripled over the last 50 years. Demand for freshwater is increasing by 64 billion cubic meters a year (1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters)

• _The world's population is growing by roughly 80 million people each year._

• _Changes in lifestyles and eating habits in recent years are requiring more water consumption per capita._

• _The production of biofuels has also increased sharply in recent years, with significant impact on water demand. Between 1,000 and 4,000 litres of water are needed to produce a single litre of biofuel._

• _Energy demand is also accelerating, with corresponding implications for water demand._ [65]

This might sound like a dumb question, but how to we expect to have an endless supply of clean drinking water when we contaminate the earth's water supply with our daily practices? We have all but forgotten nature was designed with a built in cleaning system. We must have forgotten, because we have systematically destroyed that system. Now we add chemicals to our drinking water so it's fit for human consumption. Or is it?

In addition to its value for direct human consumption, water is integrally linked to the provision and quality of ecosystem services. On the one hand, water is vital to the survival of ecosystems and the plants and animals that live in them; on the other, ecosystems regulate the quantity and quality of water. Wetlands retain water during high rainfall and release it during dry periods, purifying it of many contaminants.

Forests reduce erosion and sedimentation of rivers and recharge groundwater (Bos and Bergkamp 2001). Ecosystem services can be defined as the conditions and processes through which ecosystems sustain and fulfill human life, including the provision of food and other goods (Carpenter et al. 2002).

Ecosystem services are not generally traded in markets, have no price, and therefore are not properly valued in economic decision making, but they are essential for human life and welfare.

_Moreover, a growing number of the world's rivers, lakes, and groundwater aquifers are being severely contaminated by human, industrial, and agricultural wastes. High withdrawals of water and heavy pollution loads have already caused widespread harm to a number of ecosystems. This has resulted in a wide range of health effects in which humans have been harmed by waterborne illness and contaminated food._ [66]

In most cultures, water is considered a human necessity and has not been sold for profit. Bottled water is a profit-making product and is an exception. However, economics 101 teaches us the law of supply and demand. When there is a perception of an endless abundance, the commodity is worthless. However, once the commodity becomes scarce, it becomes extremely valuable.

We have been trying to stop the politically generated concept of global warming by throwing money at the automotive industry, by manufacturing fake 'green' products and by growing corn for bio-fuels such as ethanol. When did reducing carbon emissions trump the importance of protecting the availability of clean water?

Do we still believe there will always be an endless supply of clean drinking water? Furthermore, if there is an endless supply of it why doesn't every human being have access to it? Is it not a fundamental human right? No? But oil is? Arms and guns are a right but clean water is not? Oil has become a matter of life and death – it's what we send our troops to die for. Perhaps water will be next.

For water-demand context, take a look at these two charts from 1999 to use as background information to see how industrialized nations compare to one another on the price and consumption of municipal water.

Source: World Commission on Water for the 21st Century, 1999. "The Poor Pay Much More for Water... Use Much Less - Often Contaminated." (www.worldcouncil.org).

Note: The World Water Commission is assembling its data from a wide variety of sources, including its own research, World Bank reports, UN data, private sector surveys, non-governmental organizations and other Internet sources. The findings are preliminary rather than definitive, but do show trends

Pay special attention to the next two paragraphs about the issues facing municipal water and sewage treatment facilities, which pump out endless gallons of water.

_Communities with older systems in need of extensive repairs or replacement face the most difficult problems. With all levels of government adopting policies of realistic water pricing and user pay principles, many municipalities have instituted_ _full cost pricing_ _to recover the total cost of providing both water and sewer services -- including the costs of financing the replacement of older systems and the upgrading of overloaded treatment plants. Higher municipal costs, in turn, mean higher water -- and sewer -- bills._

_The problem of stressed treatment systems is not restricted to communities with piped water and sewer systems. Over the past 25 years, there has been a substantial migration of urban dwellers to the countryside. City-bred water using habits and attitudes are, in many instances, lowering the water table. And, the flood of wastewater produced is_ _stressing the soil's ability to treat septic effluent adequately_ _._ [67]

What's that?

_Septic tank effluent_ _is the wastewater that is discharged or flows out of a septic system. Wastewater is any liquid or water that is produced from a building and may contain waste from sinks, bathtubs, toilets and appliances such as washers and dishwashers that use water. Wastewater may contain contaminants that are harmful to humans, animals and plants; therefore it is important that wastewater is treated adequately before it is released into the environment._ [68]

Adequately? Who is in charge of your clean water supply? You – or do you leave it up to someone else?

E.Coli in the water supply

Canada's worst-ever outbreak of E.Coli contamination took place in 2000 in a rural small town in Bruce County, Ontario.

_The community of Walkerton, population less than 5,000 at the time, saw 2,300 people fall ill, and seven die, after breakdowns in the local water system. The region's public health officer later said the catastrophe was probably preventable._ [69]

Additionally, E.Coli infiltrated a Canadian beef processing plant in the fall of 2012 – twelve years later and over 3000 kilometers away.

[ _October 2012] If you want to know what E.Coli 0157 - H7 has the potential to do to you, ask Jeff Holliday. He drank the water in Walkerton Ontario in the spring of 2000 ingesting the very same strain of E.Coli that has now led to the largest beef recall in Canadian history. Jeff Holliday was sick for years and ended up needing two organ transplants...The water that flowed out of kitchen faucets in Walkerton, Ontario in May of 2000 was very different stuff that had poured from the taps just a few weeks earlier. It looked and smelled the same. But it was devastatingly toxic._

Walkerton's water sickened thousands of people that May and killed seven people. The particular strain of E. coli that slipped into the town's water supply is the same strain found in meat from the Brooks, Alberta processing plant. O157:H7.

_Already at least ten people have been sickened with the bacteria and_ _1,500 meat products have been recalled_ _from the XL plant._ [70]

China had it's own water problems in 2005 when the municipal water to 3.8 million people became contaminated.

Emergency measures are in force in the northeastern Chinese city of Harbin, after water supplies were turned off.

The move came amid fears the city's drinking water could be contaminated after an explosion at a chemical factory upstream of the Songhua river.

_The chemical factory processed benzene, a highly poisonous toxin that is also carcinogenic._ [71]

Suggested Song

Where the River Flows, Collective Soul (1995)

Where the river flows

The manipulation of water to reach areas far from the original source is not unique to the last few centuries – it's been around since the dawn of civilization. As civilization expands so too does the demand for water. If we go back to Ancient Rome, it was their aqueducts that set the stage for man's quest to control the water to his liking.

_The Romans constructed numerous aqueducts to bring water from distant sources into their cities and towns, supplying public baths, latrines, fountains and private households. Wastewater was removed by complex sewage systems and released into nearby bodies of water, keeping the towns clean and free from effluent. Some aqueducts also provided water for mining operations and the milling of grain. Rome's first aqueduct supplied a water-fountain sited at the city's cattle-market. By the third century AD, the city had eleven aqueducts, sustaining a population of over a million in a water-extravagant economy; most of the water supplied the city's many public baths._ (Wikipedia)

Let's fast forward to the turn of the 20th Century and Los Angeles, California where massive water manipulation reached North America.

In 1904, the inadequacy of the Los Angeles River as a water supply for the growing city's 175,000 people came to a head. For 10 straight days that summer, water consumption in Los Angeles exceeded river capacity by more than 4 million gallons (about 15,141,647 liters). Finding an alternative water source became a top priority, and with an abundance of water just outside the city, aqueducts proved to be the answer.

_Despite the controversy that came to surround the Los Angeles aqueducts, they are nonetheless a feat of engineering as amazing as those in Ancient Rome. Relying entirely on gravity, the two L.A. aqueducts today carry about 430 million gallons (1,627.7 megaliters) of water over hundreds of miles into Los Angeles every day._ [72]

Let's take one more look at water manipulation in the 21st Century. The world's largest hydroelectric project resides in China. It's also been touted as the world's largest base of clean energy on the planet. Some say otherwise _._

[2011] The Three Gorges displaced over 1.4 million residents along the Yangtze during the digging and construction of a giant concrete barrier, made up of 16 million tons of concrete. More than 1,000 towns and villages were flooded in the process. Landslides and pollution have plagued the areas near the dam since it was built.

Meanwhile, a prolonged drought has persisted along the Yangtze, affecting nearly 10 million people along the river's middle and lower sections, in Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi and Anhui provinces, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

Citizens in the region are blaming the dam's restriction on river flow for exacerbating the effects of the drought.

_The project, which cost more than 180 billion yuan (US$28 billion), has been a source of pride for the government while also arousing intense debate among scientists and villagers. Completed in 2006, the dam includes a five-tier ship lock, a reservoir, and 26 hydropower turbo-generators. The dam was originally touted for its ability to control the impact of flooding that threatens the Yangtze river delta each summer._ [73]

That's a snapshot of the manipulation of water on a grand scale, but how about we reconnect it to the average individual before we move on.

_Both the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and the FDA believe there's really no need to require bottled water manufacturers to admit their products come from tap water. No surprise there -- both these organizations routinely act to protect the interests of powerful corporations, and when it comes to bottled water, the biggest companies are often those sourcing the lowest quality water._ [74]

Aquifers, ground water, water tables, and reservoirs - they are all at risk as we collectively thirst for more power, more oil and more natural gas to fuel a culture of consumption in the 21st Century.

Suggested Movies

Thunderheart (1992)

Erin Brokovich (2000)

Fracking

The term 'fracking' was not a word used in mainstream vocabulary until 2012/2013.

What is it and why are we all of a sudden talking about it and demonstrating against it?

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has played an important role in the development of America's oil and natural gas resources for nearly 60 years. In the U.S., an estimated 35,000 wells are processed with the hydraulic fracturing method; it's estimated that over one million wells have been hydraulically fractured since the first well in the late 1940s.

Each well is a little different, and each one offers lessons learned. The oil and natural gas production industry uses these lessons to develop best practices to minimize the environmental and societal impacts associated with development.

Studies estimate that up to 80 percent of natural gas wells drilled in the next decade will require hydraulic fracturing to properly complete well setup.

_In short, this makes it possible for shale oil extraction to produce oil and natural gas in places where conventional technologies are ineffective. Hydraulic fracturing involves the use of water pressure to create fractures in rock that allow the oil and natural gas it contains to escape and flow out of a well._ [75]

It's a process to capture energy to bring to your homes so you can have power...but at what cost? Remember the laws of cause and affect? Action and reaction?

 Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers, Ian Urbina, New York Times

[February 2011] The American landscape is dotted with hundreds of thousands of new wells and drilling rigs, as the country scrambles to tap into this century's gold rush — for natural gas.

The gas has always been there, of course, trapped deep underground in countless tiny bubbles, like frozen spills of seltzer water between thin layers of shale rock. But drilling companies have only in recent years developed techniques to unlock the enormous reserves, thought to be enough to supply the country with gas for heating buildings, generating electricity and powering vehicles for up to a hundred years.

So energy companies are clamoring to drill. And they are getting rare support from their usual sparring partners. Environmentalists say using natural gas will help slow climate change because it burns more cleanly than coal and oil. Lawmakers hail the gas as a source of jobs. They also see it as a way to wean the United States from its dependency on other countries for oil.

But the relatively new drilling method — known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — carries significant environmental risks. It involves injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

... _But the E.P.A. has not intervened. In fact, federal and state regulators are allowing most sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste not to test for radioactivity. And most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania, with the blessing of regulators, have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006, even though the drilling boom began in 2008._

In other words, there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.

That has experts worried.

" _We're burning the furniture to heat the house," said John H. Quigley, who left last month as secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. "In shifting away from coal and toward natural gas, we're trying for cleaner air, but we're producing massive amounts of toxic wastewater with salts and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and it's not clear we have a plan for properly handling this waste."_ [76]

Serendipity is a strange phenomenon. As I compile information, I checked for sources connecting fracking with an increase in earthquakes. I've seen the Twitter feeds, the articles and the comments linking the two together, but this one, dated July 15, 2013 is well worth the read. It includes graphs, expert and educated opinions and I think you'll find it relevant.

Fracking and Earthquakes

" _The number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years within the central and eastern United States. More than 300 earthquakes above a magnitude 3.0 occurred in the three years from 2010-2012, compared with an average rate of 21 events per year observed from 1967-2000."_

 Energy Risk: Sharp Rise In U.S. Earthquakes Directly Linked To Fracking, from the Energy Collective.

Let's connect another dot. Hurricanes damage infrastructure, and if that infrastructure contains toxic wastewater from fracking practices, there is no happy ending.

On October 29, 2012 Hurricane Sandy caused storm surges along the New York/New Jersey coastline resulting in billions of dollars in damage. If you research the total cost of the storm you'll see estimates ranging from 20 billion to over 70 billion.

Wastewater and Hurricanes

" _The impact of Sandy's storm surge is enormous, causing widespread pollution of the Hudson River and New York Harbor by a variety of toxic chemicals, including petroleum and fluids from cars and boats; contaminants from flooded subways, roads, parking lots and tunnels; and contaminants washed from shoreline industrial sites, as well as commercial and residential buildings," said Gallay. "Oil sheens and debris have been observed—everything from 55-gallon drums and quart-sized containers of transmission fluid to wrecked boats and swamped vehicles with leaking fuel tanks."_

_Toxic fracking wastewater is often stored in open-air pits close to homes. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, these facilities are required to prepare, amend and implement spill prevention plans._ [77]

Under the Clean Water Act, there is something called the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule which includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities to prepare, amend, and implement spill prevention plans. Sounds like a no-brainer. But in Fiscal Year 2011, EPA officials visited 120 sites oil and gas development sites and found 105 were out of compliance-- 87.5%. (Note: these do not have to be oil production sites. For example, natural gas pads may have enough fuel for drill rigs stored on site to trigger this requirement.)

_Almost every single oil and gas site inspected lacked a mandatory spill prevention plan meant to protect our rivers and streams._ [78]

Although many are quick to point the cause of storms like Sandy as global warming, I would suggest that's not the case. There were far more devastating hurricanes prior to the 21st Century of consumption.

A full moon, high tide and a rare mix of two storm systems caused Hurricane/Super-storm Sandy. The damage (financial and otherwise) from Sandy and all other _natural disasters_ occurs because humans insist on building developments, cities, subdivisions, etc. along coastal waterways, flood plains, fault lines and on land below sea level.

Furthermore, if global warming is in fact true, and the ice caps are all melting at a ramped up rate, why then do Governments allow corporations and investors to build in vulnerable areas? Surely Science has provided adequate information warning of the environmental changes well ahead of time. If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true. Critical thinking is imperative as you sift through countless pieces of a very fractured reality.

Suggested Movie

Waterworld (1995)

The Environment and Our Food Supply

It would be nice if the Food and Drug Administration stopped issuing warnings about toxic substances and just gave me the names of one or two things still safe to eat.  
~Robert Fuoss

Overview

I am going to borrow another excerpt from the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn to set up this section. The teacher's dialogue is in _italics_ and the student's is in **bold**.

We increase food production in the U.S. tremendously every year, but our population growth is relatively slight. On the other hand, population growth is steepest in countries with poor agricultural production.

An increase in food production is Nebraska doesn't necessarily produce a population increase in Nebraska. It may produce a population increase somewhere in India or Africa. Every increase in food production is answered by an increase in population somewhere. In other words, someone is consuming Nebraska's surpluses – and if they weren't, Nebraska's farmers would stop producing those surpluses, pronto.

**Are you suggesting that First World farmers are fueling the Third World population explosion**?

At present there [1992] are five and a half billion of you here, and, though millions of you are starving, you're producing enough food to feed six billion. And because you're producing enough food for six billion, it's a biological certainty that in three or four years there will be six billion of you. By that time, however (even though millions of you will be starving), you'll be producing enough food for six and a half billion – which means that in another three to four years there will be six and half billion. But by that time you'll be producing enough food for seven billion (even though millions of you will be starving), which again means that in another three to four years there will be seven billion of you.

_In order to halt this process, you must face the fact that increasing food production doesn't feed your hungry; it only fuels your population explosion._ [79]

 [80]

The environment, the food supply and the world's increasing population are intricately connected to one another.

Industrialized nations have access to all the food they want. They can import it, grow it, manipulate it, store it, freeze it, ship it, sell it, waste it or consume it. For every ounce of processed food there is a global system that takes it from its origin and ships it to its consumer. Our world revolves around the manipulation of food. That manipulation of food comes at a price regardless of what side of the globe you live on.

For the past sixty years, generations of people in the western hemisphere have been taught by Educational and Medical Institutions the basics of healthy living. That is, through the intake of daily recommended servings from each of the four primary food groups. (The Food Guide, Circa 1956)

The basic food groups in no particular order are:

• Fruit and vegetables

• Bread and cereals

• Meats and fish

• Milk and dairy

Along with an increase in food production in the 21st Century, there is an increase in food allergies in all four of the food groups. So, if Science is supposed to advance human technologies for the betterment of the species, why then are we so sick?

Fruit and Vegetable Allergies

_OAS (also known as pollen-food syndrome) is an allergic reaction to certain proteins in a variety of fruits, vegetables and nuts. The symptoms include itching and burning of the lips, mouth and throat. In more serious reactions, there may be swelling of the mouth, back of the throat and windpipe as well as hives._ [81]

Cases of oral allergies to fruit and vegetables are rapidly increasing, according to a British specialist.

Dr Pamela Ewan, an allergy consultant at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, said the rise in cases appears to be outstripping even peanut allergies.

Dr Ewan, who sees more than 8,000 people with allergies a year, said most patients with reactions to fruit and vegetables were youngsters.

_Symptoms include swelling in the mouth and throat, and breathing difficulties_. [82]

The common sense connection of allergies or illness to fruits and vegetables would be this: the use of chemically induced fertilizers and artificial hormones to increase, en-large or otherwise alter the natural process of their growth, production and/or yield might have something to do with it.

We can wash our fruits and vegetables or peel away the skin, but it doesn't mean the artificial environment they were grown in, stored, processed or shipped from, goes away.

If what you consume is important to you, then do the research to ensure what you put into your bodies is as free from artificial contamination as possible. There are plenty of present-day alternatives to mass-produced, artificial and pre-packaged foods in the developed world. Ask yourself a simple question. Is the inconvenience of sourcing an alternative supplier of your fruits and vegetables and proteins worth your time when your long-term health is at risk? Example: If you live in an area that doesn't produce tropical fruits naturally, why do you buy them? A wise elder once told me, " _just because you can, doesn't mean you should."_

'It appears that the mass production of vegetables in the Western world since the last world war may be the underlying factor that has led to such huge increases in this form of cancer...The increase has puzzled researchers. But Glasgow University researchers, led by Professor Kenneth McColl, have discovered a link between nitrates in fruit and vegetables and gullet cancer.

_'We are still carrying out this study, and are certainly not saying people should stop eating vegetables,' McColl said. 'But our investigations have shown that there is definitely something happening here.'_ [83]

We are a strange species indeed. We eat foods that are no longer grown in a natural environment, are full of growth hormones, pesticides and artificial preservatives, yet we wonder why we get diseases like cancer. Then we throw trillions of dollars at the scientific community and expect a cure, yet we keep on consuming and keep on polluting and keep on eating pesticide-infused food.

Pesticides and Monsanto's Roundup

_According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, pesticides have as yet incompletely understood effects on humans. Most people are exposed to a certain level of pesticides. Farmers who experience routine exposure to pesticides have exhibited neurological symptoms such as headache and hand tremors. Children, in particular, may be more susceptible to negative effects resulting from pesticide exposure. Pesticide runoff can have devastating effects on non-target organisms as well. For example,_ _roundup_ _, an extremely common herbicide used in agriculture, is highly toxic to fish and amphibians. The National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns says, "Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 19 are linked with cancer or_ _carcinogenicity_ _, 13 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 26 with liver or kidney damage, 15 with neurotoxicity, and 11 with disruption of the endocrine system._ [84]

We will discuss roundup and GMO's beyond the following definition a little further along.

_Glyphosate_ _(N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. It was discovered to be a herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970._

_Called by experts in herbicides "virtually ideal" due to its broad spectrum and low toxicity compared with other herbicides, glyphosate was quickly adopted by farmers. Use increased even more when Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops. In 2007 glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the US agricultural sector, with 180 to 185 million pounds (82,000 to 84,000 tonnes) applied, and the second most used in home and garden market where users applied 5 to 8 million pounds (2,300 to 3,600 tonnes); additionally industry, commerce and government applied 13 to 15 million pounds (5,900 to 6,800 tonnes). While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is widely used, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist._ (Wikipedia)

More and more evidence is emerging about how harmful this stuff is. We can't erase what we've already consumed but we can become more diligent about what we eat in the future. One current issue being played across North America is the fight to have our foods labeled so we are aware of what we're eating. That's not too much to ask, is it? See California's proposition 37 in the GMO section.

When is the last time you read the labels of the food you ingest? Chances are half the ingredients are a chemical derivative of something – that we can't pronounce and certainly don't understand...but we eat it anyway. The conspiracy theorists say there is a dumbing down of society – that we have lost our ability to think, to reason and to ask reasonable questions because of the additives in our food and water supply. Surely if we hadn't lost those things, we wouldn't be eating ourselves into mass sickness, would we? Why are we not paying attention?

_What the consumer of GM-contaminated food must understand is that glyphosate, and the many insufficiently tested "inactive" ingredients sprayed on these foods, enter the body and have real, adverse effects that are cumulative, even if mostly subclinical. The only way we can be sure to reduce our exposure to these agrichemicals is through consciously refraining from consuming them. And how do we do that? Get the stuff labeled, and give the consumer a choice not to eat it._ [85]

Bread and Cereal Allergies

A relatively new food allergy has been identified as 'gluten intolerance', aka a wheat allergy. It manifests in a human condition known as celiac disease.

Celiac disease, also known as gluten intolerance, is a genetic disorder that affects at least 1 in 133 Americans. Symptoms of celiac disease can range from the classic features, such as diarrhea, weight loss, and malnutrition, to latent symptoms such as isolated nutrient deficiencies but no gastrointestinal symptoms. The disease mostly affects people of European (especially Northern European) descent, but recent studies show that it also affects Hispanic, Black and Asian populations as well.

_Because of the broad range of symptoms celiac disease presents, it can be difficult to diagnose. The symptoms can range from mild weakness, bone pain, and aphthous stomatitis to chronic diarrhea, abdominal bloating, and progressive weight loss. If a person with the disorder continues to eat gluten, studies have shown that he or she will increase their chances of gastrointestinal cancer by a factor of 40 to 100 times that of the normal population. Further, gastrointestinal carcinoma or lymphoma develops in up to 15 percent of patients with untreated or refractory celiac disease._ [86]

Here's the deal. Food producers put wheat into more edible products than you could possibly imagine so we have no clue how much wheat is being put into things even if we do become diligent at reading labels. That's because they have given wheat a whole bunch of new names like vegetable gum, spelt (triticum spelta), modified starch, and vegetable protein.

If you think you have intolerance to any of this, you might want to research celiac disease. A friend of mine went through hell and back for years with food intake, and after her intestines were nearly ripped to shreds, she discovered through her own diligent research and self diagnosis, she had celiac disease. She now manages it with a highly restrictive diet.

_Gluten is a protein found in wheat, rye, triticale, barley. In the case of wheat, gliadin has been isolated as the toxic fraction. It is the gluten in the flour that helps bread and other baked goods bind and prevents crumbling. This feature has made gluten widely used in the production of many processed and packaged foods._ [87]

Here's a partial list of foods containing some form of wheat.

_Meats:_ _Rissoles, salami, corned beef, luncheon meat, liver-sausage, continental sausages, pates, meat and fish pastes and spreads, ham, fish and scotch eggs coated with breadcrumbs._

_Vegetable product:_ _Vegetable pates and spreads, vegetables coated in breadcrumbs, e.g. onion rings, vegetables tempura, tinned beans, tinned spaghetti, soups._

_Sauces and condiments:_ _Gravy, packet and jar and bottled sauces, casserole and "ready-meal" mixes, stock cubes and granules, ready prepared and powdered mustard, stuffing, baking powder, monosodium glutamate, some spice mixes (check label)._

_Dessert:_ _Most puddings, pastry, yogurts containing cereal, ice cream, pancakes, cheesecakes and others with a biscuit base._

_Beverages:_ _Malted milk, chocolate, Ovaltine and other powdered drinks. Beer, ale, stout, larger, Pils lager, whisky, malt whisky, gin, most spirits and many wine._

_Confectionery:_ _Liquorice, chocolate, chocolate bars and most wrapped bars._

_Medication:_ _Many prescribed and over the counter drugs contain wheat._ [88]

When did they start putting wheat into all of those things and why do they put it into all of those things? And, if it's bothering so many people why do we insist on eating it? Why do we like bread so much?

Maybe our need for wheat is programmed into our DNA as a necessity to our biological and physical evolution, since it was put here on earth for humans to live off of. I think that's worth exploring don't you?

Let's go to history class to see if we can learn more about the relationship between wheat and humans to figure out where it changed from being a source of nourishment to a source of sickness and disease.

The History of Wheat

• _Wheat grain has been used for thousands of years to provide food for humans. Wheat has been found in pits where human settlements flourished over 8,000 years ago. In the British Museum, you can see actual loaves that were made and baked in Egypt over 5,000 years ago._

• _Wheat is the product of a cross between three different grass species, which is reputed to have happened about 10,000 B.C._

• _5500 B.C.: The ability to sow and reap cereals may be one of the chief causes which led man to dwell in communities, rather than to live a wandering life hunting and herding cattle._

• _200 B.C.: The Romans started to use animal power to grind wheat. The Romans used sieves to produce finer flour. Baking ovens were improved. Two kinds of oven were developed; the Beehive and the Pot oven._

• _1400-1600 A.D.: In the Middle Ages, windmills and watermills were built closer to where the grain was grown. Crop rotation was introduced. The first rotations only alternated grassland and crops, but the big breakthrough in the 18th century was the 'Norfolk four course', attributed to Turnip Townsend who introduced the sequence of wheat/root crop/fallow/beans. As the population grew, breadmaking was firmly established as a business and a trade_ _._

• _1850-1900: Between 1856 and 1863 Gregor Mendel tested almost 28,000 pea plants in his quest to perfect his 'Laws of Inheritance' which in turn led to the modern study of genetics._

However, it was not until the early part of the 20th century that Mendel's theories were put to commercial use. The methods for making bread changed. Silk sieves were introduced and square or oblong baking tins were invented, making it easier to slice the bread.

_To meet the demands of the growing population, long-lasting flour was needed._ _Those elements that spoiled the flour, the outer bran and germ layer, were taken out. Unfortunately, these contained most of the wheat's nutrients._

Now it's beginning to make sense.

• _1900 onwards_ _: Inorganic fertilizers have boosted yield and quality and crop protection has improved so farmers are losing less of their yield to pests, disease and weeds. The increase in global trade in wheat has meant that farmers now face competition from many other markets._

• _21_ st _Century Plant Science_ _: Fundamental research on the biology of cereals to understand how genetics can affect the physical properties of wheat. A major goal is to develop the technology and knowledge to be able to predict how wheat varieties will behave under future breeding conditions. This will ensure high-yielding, stress and disease resistant varieties that require less herbicides and fertilisers for successful growth._

• _21_ st _Century Food Science_ _:_ _The Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK were partners in a "farm to fork" DEFRA link project to increase the levels of selenium in wheat which is an essential element for the human immune system. Intake has decreased over the last 30 years because we no longer import high selenium wheat used for milling from North America. Instead we grow 80% of our own milling wheat in soils, which are low in selenium._ [89]

Through the timeline you can hazard a guess as to why so many people can't eat wheat products anymore. Within a generation we went from eating locally produced breads and cereals derived from whole, natural crops to mass produced breads and cereals derived from chemically induced crops, and they stripped all the natural goodness out the equation.

The article talks about selenium and how important it is to the human body – how it's been missing from our diets and how they're going to bring it back. Let's learn what it is and why our bodies are in need of it.

_Selenium_ _is a non-metallic element that carries the chemical atomic number 34. Commonly identified with the chemical symbol of SE, selenium is an example of an element that is considered to the important in the proper function of the body._

First identified by Swedish chemist Jons Berzelius in 1817, selenium is among the chemical elements that help the body to make efficient use of oxygen. Working in tandem with vitamin E, selenium helps to remove toxins from the body. The element also contains properties that are thought to promote healthy chromosome development and function within the body, which is necessary to fight off the development of various types of cancers. The thyroid gland also benefits from the presence of selenium, with the element helping to regulate the functions of the gland. In fact, selenium is thought to help in promoting the proper function of many organs in the body, which makes it ideal for maintaining healthy blood pressure and general heart health. The high protein component of selenium also makes the nutrient essential for the maintenance of healthy skin.

_Deficiencies of selenium in the body can lead to several severe health problems. For example, lack of enough selenium in the diet can lead to the development of Keshan disease. Keshan disease involves the weakening of the heart, due to a decreased ability to efficiently pump blood through the body, thus lowering the oxygen flow to vital organs. As the thyroid gland is impacted by the lack of enough selenium, it is not unusual for the individual to experience chronic fatigue, a sense of having to expend more energy to handle even commonplace mental tasks, and a decrease in sexual function and desire._ [90]

Sounds like the common human dilemma in the 21st Century – people are functioning at a fraction of their potential in all areas of life. Selenium used to be found in the soil and it used to be found in our bodies. Now it isn't. Everything is connected. How long can we last without it? How will we react to synthetic selenium being injected back into the wheat? Time will tell.

Let's move on to meat and fish allergies next.

Suggested Reading

An Unlikely Foe: Celiac Disease Exposed, Nancy J. Lyons (2006)

Meat/Fish Allergies

Eight allergens currently dominate the list of food allergies, but a ninth one has been getting more and more attention.

In previously unexplained cases of allergic reactions and anaphylaxis— a severe and life-threatening allergic reaction — that were not caused by the most common food allergens, the culprit may have been a meat allergy.

Meat allergy is fairly new in the allergy field, says Princess Ogbogu, MD, assistant professor at The Ohio State University College of Medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine.

"It's definitely something that's kind of come to light, research-wise in allergy," says Dr. Ogbogu. "We normally see allergy to what we call 'the big eight' — milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, soy, wheat, fish, and shellfish."

... _Studies indicate that people may have allergies to beef, pork, and lamb. Allergy to meat is a newly recognized food allergy that wasn't tested for before, says Ogbogu. Patients with unexplained reactions were being treated for allergic reaction symptoms and anaphylaxis, but the puzzle pieces just weren't fitting together — until studies began to find a correlation between anaphylaxis and meat_

_The particular allergen that's probably to blame in meat is "thought to be due to a carbohydrate protein called alpha-gal," says Ogbogu. Alpha-gal is the shortened name for alpha galactose._ [91]

Okay, so it's a new allergy for the 21st Century so the next question is why?

Alpha galactose

_A study led by Dr Scott Commins of the University of Virginia and presented at a recent meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology suggest that the compound alpha-galactose which is produced in most mammals, and therefore found in meat, but not in humans, could be the cause of a number of hitherto unexplained anaphylactic reactions._ _Commins and colleagues screened blood samples from 60 patients, testing for the antibody to alpha-galactose. The people in the study (22 at the Universi_ _ty of Virginia, 20 at the University of Tennessee and 18 at John James Medical Center in Australia) had had anaphylaxis with no apparent cause._

Twenty-five tested positive for alpha-galactose and no other patterns were found that would have otherwise explained the cause of their anaphylaxis.

Usually anaphylaxis occurs within minutes of eating a food but in this case the reaction appears to be delayed for several hours. While more details on this allergy will only come with additional research, Commins said the preliminary results suggest that people with certain blood types - specifically B and AB - may be less likely to have this type of allergy than those with other blood types.

Source:  Idiopathic anaphylaxis could be a reaction to meat

But haven't we been eating meat for decades without this new allergic reaction? If the compound is produced in most mammals except humans, but humans have been relatively unaffected by it until recently, what changed? Our tolerance? The animals?

It could be caused by a random tick bite, but I would bet on the probability that the spike in meat allergies in the 21st Century might have something to do with how factory farmed and processed meat makes its way to our dinner table.

Food-borne disease

The drastic expansion of industrial animal production in the US has been accompanied by the rapid consolidation of the meat industry. This industry is now dominated by a handful of huge corporations that process most of the country's meat at enormous facilities, and consolidation continues to increase. As of 2005, four companies controlled the processing of over 80% of the country's beef and three of these same four companies process over 60% of the country's pork. Additionally, the four major companies in broiler chicken processing provide over half of the country's chicken supply.

_Federal health authorities have estimated that food-borne diseases sicken 76 million people, cause 325,000 hospitalizations, and kill 5,000 Americans every year._ [92]

If I were to ask you if arsenic was a toxic substance, what would you say?

Suggested Song

Personal Revolution, Ziggy Marley (2011)

Arsenic in popular foods and beverages

Organic rice baby cereal, rice breakfast cereals, brown rice, white rice—new tests by Consumer Reports have found that those and other types of rice products on grocery shelves contain arsenic, many at worrisome levels.

Arsenic not only is a potent human carcinogen but also can set up children for other health problems in later life.

Following our January investigation, "Arsenic in Your Juice," which found arsenic in apple and grape juices, we recently tested more than 200 samples of a host of rice products. They included iconic labels and store brands, organic products and conventional ones; some were aimed at the booming gluten-free market.

The results of our tests were even more troubling in some ways than our findings for juice. In virtually every product tested, we found measurable amounts of total arsenic in its two forms. We found significant levels of inorganic arsenic, which is a carcinogen, in almost every product category, along with organic arsenic, which is less toxic but still of concern. Moreover, the foods we checked are popular staples, eaten by adults and children alike.

Source _:_  Arsenic in Your Food: Consumer Reports Magazine 2012

Want to know more about the juice?

[July 2013] An FDA analysis of dozens of apple juice samples last year found that 95 per cent were below the new level.

The standard specifically targets inorganic arsenic – the type found in pesticides – which can be toxic and may pose a cancer risk if consumed at high levels or over a long period. Organic arsenic occurs naturally in dirt and soil and passes through the body quickly without causing harm, according to the FDA.

In 2008 FDA regulators set a "level of concern" for arsenic at 23 parts per billion in apple juice. The agency has the authority to seize juice that exceeds that level.

But agency officials played down the significance of the older figure this week, calling it a "back of the envelope" calculation that was used to assess one juice shipment detained at the border.

" _It was not a full blown, science-based number," said Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods._

_The FDA's new number is based on lifetime exposure to arsenic and the potential for long-term cancer risk. Taylor says the number reflects a very cautious approach, since it's unclear how much arsenic exposure can trigger the disease._ [93]

Who determines how much arsenic is good for us? Do you trust them?

Let's travel to China to see how they're making out with their food supply.

Contaminated livestock

[March 2013] In a statement, Shanghai authorities said that 5,916 dead pigs had been removed from the river by Tuesday.

But they said water from the river was safe, with water quality meeting government-set standards.

It is believed that the pigs may have come from Jiaxing in the neighbouring Zhejiang province, although the cause of their deaths is still not clear.

_In a statement, the Shanghai municipal government said that the water in Huangpu River, which is a major source of drinking water for Shanghai, was safe. It also said that no diseased pork had been detected in markets._ [94]

What about poultry?

[April 2013] SHANGHAI — China's bird flu outbreak is "devastating" poultry sales, an industry group said Tuesday as the death toll from the H7N9 virus rose to nine.

Since China announced over a week ago that H7N9 avian influenza had been found in humans for the first time, the number of people confirmed to have been infected has risen to 28.

The two additional patients who died Tuesday were from east China's Anhui and Jiangsu provinces, and had been already been confirmed with the virus, the Xinhua state news agency reported, citing health authorities.

Chinese authorities say they do not know how the virus is spreading, though it is believed the infection is passing from birds to humans.

_The World Health Organization (WHO) has said there is no evidence H7N9 is passing from person to person -- a development that could have the potential to trigger a pandemic._ And we've seen how trustworthy and accurate the WHO is haven't we?

Authorities have advised the public to avoid live birds but offered reassurances that poultry and eggs that are still on sale are safe to eat if cooked properly.

State media said that poultry sales had plunged in some areas of China, even regions that have so far recorded no human infections.

"It's really a devastating blow to the market for broilers," Qiu Baoqin, vice secretary general of China's National Poultry Industry Association told AFP. "The impact is extremely big."

_Broilers are young chickens sold ready for cooking._ [95]

To feed a global world you have to slaughter a global amount of animals. Food-for-profit cuts corners, and those cut-corners make us sick.

Slaughterhouses and E-Coli

_At a_ _slaughterhouse,_ _you have big animals entering at one end, and small cuts of meat leaving at the other end. In between are hundreds of workers, mainly using handheld knives, processing the meat. So during that whole production system, there are many opportunities for the meat to be contaminated. What we're really talking about is fecal contamination of the meat from the stomach contents or the hide of the animal._

_We have slaughterhouses that will process 300, 400 cattle an hour, which is as much as twice as many as anywhere else in the world. And it's that speed of production that can lead to food-safety problems. When workers are working very quickly, they may make mistakes. It's during the evisceration of the animal, or the removal of the hide, that manure can get on the meat. And when manure gets on some meat, and then that meat is ground up with lots of other meat, the whole lot of it can be contaminated...._ [96]

Regardless of the risks and frequent news stories of e-coli outbreaks and food recalls, industrialized populations consume mass produced meat in the form of processed foods in gargantuan quantities. Here are two examples of recurring headlines on the subject:

[2008] An undercover video showing crippled and sick animals being shoved with forklifts has led to the largest beef recall in the United States and a scramble to find out if any of the meat is still destined for school children's lunches.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Sunday ordered the recall of 143 million pounds of beef from a Southern California slaughterhouse that is the subject of an animal-abuse investigation.

_Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer said his department has evidence that they] did not routinely contact its veterinarian when cattle became non-ambulatory after passing inspection, violating health regulations._[ [97]

And from Canada:

[2012] The recall plaguing Alberta's XL Foods, and that has been tied to E. coli cases in the province, is now the biggest beef recall in Canadian history.

The fourth recall in as many days on Tuesday is taking the breadth and scale of the Alberta beef recall to even higher levels.

_The recall is now the largest one in Canadian history, the CBC is reporting, with more than 1,500 different kinds of meat items being pulled from shelves in every province and 41 states across the border._ [98]

Common sense might suggest the reason we're having more and more food aversions is because of the polluted environments our food is grown in. In addition to what we do to the animals during their short lifespan on crowded farms, we add chemicals to process, manufacture, ship and store it.

There are growing numbers of healthy food-source alternatives: Organic farming, sustainable farming, local providers, and family farms. Take the time to create your own healthy food chain, or not. It's up to you. Don't have the time? Why? What are you doing that's more important than sourcing healthy food for yourself and your family?

Suggested Song

Scarecrow, John Mellancamp (1995)

Here is one example of innovative, responsible, healthy farming.

Beretta Family Farms, Ontario Canada

Beretta Family Farms is a family run farm committed to providing organic meats for people who are interested in not only what they eat, but also about the health and well-being of the Earth. On our farm, we don't use chemicals, genetically modified organisms, or artificial fertilizers during our cropping process. No antibiotics or growth enhancers are used in raising our livestock. Our logo depicts horses harnessed to the sun. We gratefully and respectfully harvest the fruits of the sun's energy and seek to do so in ways that reduce our dependence upon non-renewable and polluting energy sources.

What if more people subscribed to this way of providing for their communities? Imagine the possibilities.

Here's a great example a major city, Montreal, where innovation and sustainability is the basis of a homegrown vegetable business year round.

 Lufa Farms: Rooftop Farm Set to Deliver Fresh Produce to Montreal Consumers

For those who have replaced a beef-rich diet with a poultry or fish-rich diet - become aware of where your meat originates from too.

Factory-Farmed Animals for Consumption

_Factory Farming is the practice of raising usually thousands of animals in close confinement and high density with the purpose of producing meat, eggs, or milk in the fastest, most efficient, and cheapest way possible for human consumption. These industrial operations are corporate agribusiness institutions, also called "CAFOS" - concentrated animal feeding operations_.

• _Economies of scale dictate everything_ _. One of the world's largest pig farms in the US holds 500,000 hogs in one Smithfield facility in Utah in tight confinement ._

• _Large_ _numbers_ _of animals are usually held indoors in closed confined pens and sheds_ _, and often with physical restraints to control unnecessary movement. The more animals they can crowd into a space, the more profitable it is for the factory farm_.

• _Factory farms are highly standardized for efficiency_ _. Monocultures of animals and feed crops are created to be highly unified through gene manipulation to help yielding consistent production every year. Less diversity and variety of agricultural products make management and regulation of food quality easier._

• _Growth hormones, genetic engineering, and specific breeding programs are used_ _to create more desirable and consistent animal anatomies, and to stimulate faster growth. This potent chemical cocktail fattens only the animal parts that consumers pay most for._

• _Huge amounts of antibiotics and pesticides are used to fight the spreading of diseases and bacteria,_ _as farm animals would get sick due to the crowded conditions, dirt, and humidity in the pens._

• _All factory farm animals - including fish - are fed grains, mostly high-yield corn and soy mixes, which are cheap but low in nutritio_ _. The feed can also contain ground-up parts of other animals of the same or other species that did not make it into human food production._

• _Fish farming is one of the fastest growing food producing sectors._ _More than 30% of sea animals consumed each year are raised on fish farms now ._

• _The typical factory farm worker gets low wages, works severe over-hours, and won't complain, as he has no rights._ _More often than not, illegal immigrants are used, as they would cope with all conditions for fear of deportation. Working conditions at factory farms are harsh, dreadful, and hazardous to safety and health of these workers_ [99] _._

Source: Factory Farming Facts

Suggested Movie

Food Inc, (2008)

Fish Allergies

Fish has become a popular alternative to those struggling with the ethics of factory-farmed animals, but the reality is most store-bought fish is factory farmed as well.

_A 2003 report from the Environmental Working Group showed that farmed salmon in the U.S. has the highest levels of PCBs, toxic man-made chemicals. And a widely publicized study in the journal Science in January 2004 suggested that farmed Atlantic salmon had higher levels of PCBs and other toxics than wild Pacific salmon._ [100]

When I began to write these books I became more aware of how my food is processed so I became more diligent in reading labels. In a well-known grocery chain, I had a difficult time sourcing fish from anywhere other than China. How could a country enveloped by two oceans be selling its fish-for-consumption from China?

October 2012, (NaturalNews): More than 85 percent of the seafood consumed by Americans is imported, with much of it coming from China, Vietnam, and various other Asian countries that have a not-so-consistent track record of food safety. And as it turns out, conditions at many of the foreign facilities where imported seafood is processed before getting shipped to the states are so filthy and contaminated that if consumers knew just how bad things really were, they would likely think twice before buying that pack of scallops or shrimp from the grocery store.

Since the seafood industry is relatively cutthroat these days, certain unscrupulous seafood farmers, particularly in Asian countries, are cutting corners to boost profits, which puts consumers at high risk. In the case of Chinese fish farming, many operators have altogether stopped purchasing safer commercial feed, and have instead turned to exclusively feeding their fish potentially deadly animal waste.

_"The manure the Chinese use to feed fish is frequently contaminated with microbes and salmonella," says Michael Doyle, Director of the University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety, about the larger problem of China's seafood farming industry._ [101]

Here is something to consider as to why there seems to be an increasing number of people who cannot consume meat without feeling ill.

In the world of allergies, there are a few common culprits to which many sufferers can relate. Pollen, peanuts and even egg and wheat are some that are widely known and, hence, widely understood. They're annoying for sure, but at least their victims can take solace in the fact that they are not alone in their misery. But what of those whose allergies fall outside of the mainstream. For example, those allergic to meat?

_While more details on this allergy will only come with additional research, Commins said the preliminary results suggest that people with certain blood types -- specifically B and AB -- may be less likely to have this type of allergy than those with other blood types._ [102]

We saw that in an earlier article as well – a reference to blood types and meat consumption, so I think it's time we investigate the role our DNA plays in how we process food.

Eating for Your Blood Type

" _There has been extensive scientific research over the past 30 years that shows evidence that your individual blood type determines your predisposition toward getting certain diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, lupus, muscular sclerosis, allergies, etc. Our blood type also determines what type of biochemistry our digestive systems are made of. "Your blood type is a powerful genetic fingerprint that identifies you as surely as your DNA"._

There are four blood type groups: O, A, B, and AB. The majority of people are Blood Type O. Next comes Blood Type A, then Blood Type B; and, Blood Type AB is very rare and has only been around for about 1000 years. Less than 5% of the world's population have Blood Type AB.

Have you ever noticed that some people can eat a variety of foods with no problems, while others suffer from gas, bloating, indigestion and heartburn? The reason for this is that people with different blood types cannot eat or digest the same foods equally. The following is a brief overview of the peculiarities of each blood type group:

_Blood Type O_ _is the oldest blood type in the world (evolved around 40,000 BC), and is traced back to CroMagnon man. People with Blood Type O have the hardiest digestive systems. They are the meat-eaters. Persons with Blood Type O need animal protein for good health, as well as vegetables and fruits. However, carbohydrates should be kept to a minimum, since the Blood Type O person cannot digest carbohydrates very well, especially wheat products containing gluten. This person will do well on a high animal protein, low carbohydrate diet; and, dairy products should be kept to a minimum._

_People with_ _Blood Type A_ _evolved from the hunter/meat-eater to the agrarian, and were the farmers and grain gatherers. This blood type evolved between 25,000 and 15,000 bC. They have fragile digestive systems. These people cannot tolerate animal protein well, and should be the proverbial, classic "vegetarian" of the human species. They also are usually lactose intolerant, as well. Persons with Blood Type A should avoid animal protein and dairy products, and would do well with whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables._ [103]

As you consider your DNA as a possible reason why you can or cannot eat certain foods, please also consider the properties of organic versus processed foods in your diets. For example, I am blood type O and according to the data I should be thriving on meat as my ancestors did. I haven't eaten red meat in years because I felt ill every time I consumed it. Does that mean the science behind the 'eat for your blood type' theory is wrong? No. It means my DNA is not programmed to eat _genetically modified_ meat or modified anything else for that matter ...and I might assume, neither is yours.

Suggested Reading

Eating Right 4 Your Type, Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo (1996)

Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the American Meal, Eric Schlosser (2002)

Milk and Dairy Allergies

As mammals, we share a common characteristic with most other species' of mammals which is 'suckling our young.

How have we managed to become milk intolerant if milk is a natural food provided to us since birth? Our DNA should be thriving on it, right? Perhaps we're supposed to thrive on our own species' milk for as long as it naturally occurs and that's it.

For us to understand the rise in lactose intolerance like we did with gluten/wheat intolerance, we need to go back into history for the big picture of our dietary evolution. So with the help of science, let's do that next.

The History of Milk

A new Cornell University study finds that it is primarily people whose ancestors came from places where dairy herds could be raised safely and economically, such as in Europe, who have developed the ability to digest milk. On the other hand, most adults whose ancestors lived in very hot or very cold climates that couldn't support dairy herding or in places where deadly diseases of cattle were present before 1900, such as in Africa and many parts of Asia, do not have the ability to digest milk after infancy.

Although all mammalian infants drink their mothers' milk, humans are the only mammals that drink milk as adults. But most people -- about 60 percent and primarily those of Asian and African descent -- stop producing lactase, the enzyme required to digest milk, as they mature. People of northern European descent, however, tend to retain the ability to produce the enzyme and drink milk throughout life.

_According to the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse, some 30 million to 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant, including up to 75 percent of African Americans and American Indians and 90 percent of Asian Americans._ [104]

For those folks who find themselves an exception to the above statistics (i.e. you're not from one of the identified groups mentioned above, yet you still can't drink or consume dairy without becoming ill-affected, you may want to consider this:

Cow's milk is a foreign substance that has pervaded every corner of our diets—starting with artificial infant feeds, but finding its way into mother's breast milk through the foods she eats as well. As it turns out, health problems such as childhood diabetes, obesity, bowel disease, osteoporosis, heart disease, cataracts, colic, ear infections, hyperactivity, and cancer, on the rise in both children and adults, are strongly linked to infant feeding choices.

_The proteins in cow's milk are different from human milk proteins and cause problems of digestion, intolerance, impaired absorption of other nutrients, and autoimmune reactions. Few of the proteins meant for baby cows are found naturally in human mother's milk, and none are found in any natural adult human food. Even the high protein content in cow's milk creates problems. Human babies need the saturated fats and cholesterol in mother's milk. Bovine milk fat is not appropriately composed for human babies and is only deleterious to the health of children and adults. Cow hormones are not meant for humans, and older children and adults are not meant to consume hormones. And, cows have been selectively bred over time to create high levels of these hormones—those being the cows that grow the fastest and produce the greatest amount of milk. Cows also concentrate pesticides and pollutants into their milk fat, from their high dietary food and water requirements. The high amount of drugs now given to cows adds to this chemical soup._ [105]

But the media and the Doctors and the Corporations tell us milk is good for us. We see celebrities with milk moustaches promoting its health benefits in magazines and billboards so it must be true.

We are living in an interesting time in our evolution. We are globally connected to one another through finance, through the environment and through the supply and demand of the products/resources we use to sustain human life on the planet.

Growing, adapting and learning to live in harmony with the earth has not been easy. Change does not come without error. For every step forward, we take steps backward. For every year of life we extend to the average human life, there are new challenges to face and overcome.

This is what humans do. As the book Ishmael suggests, humans will continue to seek to dominate and conquer their environments to reach 'paradise' regardless of consequence. What paradise is exactly, no one knows but I can bet it isn't found in a commodity that's bought and sold at the expense of our planet.

Suggested Song

Big Yellow Taxi, Counting Crows (2002)

Genetically Modified Foods & Organisms (GMO's)

Although GMO's are found in several major crops (Soybean, Canola, Cotton) I am going to focus on corn. If you remember, corn was the crop that received the most in U.S. government subsidies.

Most of the corn supply has been genetically modified to resist parasites, yield more and rot less. GMO seeds, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides create runoff and residue in the soil, water and air. When the crops harvest, they are fed to animals raised for slaughter and wind up on your dinner table. The by-products of the GMO-fed animals are used in everything you use - from chewing gum to pharmaceuticals, beer, cosmetics and instant coffee. Please consult this partial list to become aware of the prevalence of GMO corn in products after this partial list from A to C:

Adhesives (glues, pastes, mucilages, gums)

Aluminum

Antibiotics (penicillin)

Asbestos insulation

Aspirin

Automobiles (everything on wheels)

\- cylinder heads

\- ethanol - fuel & windshield washer fluid

\- spark plugs

\- synthetic rubber finishes

\- tires

Baby food

Batteries, dry cell

Beer

Breakfast cereals

Candies

Canned vegetables

Carbonated beverages

Cheese spreads

Chewing gum

Chocolate products

Coatings on wood, paper & metal

Colour carrier in paper & textile, printing

Corn chips

Corn meal

Cosmetics

And that list only covers the first three letters of the alphabet. Here is a good source for more information: corn facts _._

We've all heard the argument about quantity over quality. It's never been more prevalent in our food and product supply...where there is quantity, there is little quality.

The Institute for Science in Society (ISIS) _believes introducing GMOs into any part of our lifestyle is a bad thing. ISIS claims GMO's haven't delivered as promised with regard to crops, can cause contamination, and are making some farms unsafe with bacterial issues. Further, ISIS says all the DNA genetic engineering can produce super viruses, unwanted bacteria, and even cancer. GMOs are present in almost sixty percent of all processed foods including vegetable oil, Soya flour, lecithin, and Soya proteins. GMO maize products make up approximately fifty percent of processed foods including corn, cornstarch, and corn syrups. Beets, sugar, dairy products, and soybeans are also produced through genetic engineering._ [106]

Suggested Reading

Seeds of Deception (2003) & Genetic Roulette (2007), Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe's "unfounded, unscientific fears" of these foods for thwarting recovery efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S. exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisements.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world's food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan.

First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in fifteen to twenty years.

_Monsanto executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented_ _._ _Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct._

Integral to the plan was Monsanto's influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, "The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender."

The FDA assured us GMO's were safe.

... _Many scientists who understood the dangers, however, were not convinced by the FDA's assurances. Geneticist David Suzuki, for example, said, "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done." A January 2001 report from an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada likewise supported the conclusions of the FDA scientists._ [107]

That's a small window into the impact of GMO's on humans. If all living things are connected, what must GMO's be doing to other species and the global environment as a whole? Humans feed off of their environments and those environments are sustained through an intricate and complex _interdependent_ ecosystem. Why then do humans insist on being independent of that system?

Suggested Song

Peyote Healing, Robbie Robertson (1998)

GMO's and Millions of Bee Deaths

There is a growing concern that millions of bee deaths are linked to GMO's through the pollination process. In July 2013 one of several Canadian articles confirmed the potential link between bees and GMO's when an Ontario farmer lost over 37 million of them.

" _What seems to be deadly to bees is that the neonicotinoid pesticides are coating corn seed and with the use of new air seeders, are blowing the pesticide dust into the air when planted. The death of millions of pollinators was looked at by American Purdue University. They found that, "Bees exhibited neurotoxic symptoms, analysis of dead bees revealed traces of thiamethoxam/clothianidin in each case. Seed treatments of field crops (primarily corn) are the only major source of these compounds."_ [108]

This website will give you a list of related articles:  GMO News and Analysis, Food Safety Politics

Why should you care?

_The impact honeybees have on the human population and the environment is far more crucial than we may think. Agricultural crops rely on honeybees worldwide to provide them with life and guarantee their reproduction. Bees facilitate pollination for most plant life, including well over 100 different vegetable and fruit crops. Without bees, there would be significantly less pollination, which would result in limited plant growth and lower food supplies. According to Dr. Albert Einstein, "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination...no more men". Bees' eradication affects us more than we may think._ [109]

I don't think it's as simple as 'ban all pesticide use' and watch the bees come back. We aren't going to get off that easy. Bees have been around for over 100 million years. Yes, you read that right. What has been in existence, in harmony with the planet for 100 million years can no longer survive on the earth's surface. How long will it be for us to start disappearing as well?

There are several unusual things about the phenomena and one common factor that cannot be attributed to be the direct cause but may be an "aggravating other conditions" factor and that is temperature fluctuations.

No single cause drought chemicals/pesticides, mites, bacteria, a fungus or virus seems to be common to all the events or even indicated as a cause in any single event. Extreme weather and temperature fluctuations seem to play a major role stressing the bees and weakening their immune systems.

There are no bee bodies; they simply all disappear, all adult bees are simply gone, sometimes leaving a queen and a few young hatched workers. This is unheard of, since normally a bee colony will do almost anything to protect its queen.

The hive is left intact, with capped cells of honey and bee bread.

_Another unusual factor is that bees sensing a dying colony nearby aren't going in right away and killing the other bees and robbing the hive of honey, like they usually do for example when the bees have died of parasites or disease_.

Source: Mysterious, Massive Disappearance/Death of US Honey Bees – Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)

And so, protests and campaigns cropped up – and when the headlines read, "EU to stop promoting GMO's" in July 2013, the protesters cried victory. Thousands upon thousands of people then became satisfied their cries had been heard. But no one seemed to notice the headlines read 'stop _promoting_ ', and not 'stop _producing_.'

How many more species will die before enough people pay attention to the details? We don't need GMO's. We lived without them before – we can do it again...or not.

Die-Offs and Mass Extinction

In 2011 articles sprang up across the globe about massive numbers of bird deaths. National Geographic's article on their webpage suggested it was a natural occurrence and although birds fly into wires and towers and buildings all the time, the large numbers of bird deaths in parts of the southern U.S. were generally attributed to fireworks celebrations on one New Year's Eve.

There's an instant explanation/justification for everything it seems – as long as it makes the issue go away.

It all started when residents of Beebe, in the US state of Arkansas, woke to find thousands of dead blackbirds strewn across roads on 1 January. Then, in Louisiana, about 500 birds - including starlings, cowbirds and redwing blackbirds - rained down from the skies.

Only days later, news outlets once again became excited by the discovery of dozens of unfortunate jackdaws who had met their fate over Falkoeping, in Sweden.

Other bird and fish die-offs - as these mass deaths are called - were also reported as far away as Japan, Thailand, and Brazil.

Conspiracy theorists have rushed to conclude that the apocalypse is nigh, while other people have mooted the idea of collisions with UFOs, or government testing of satellite-powered energy weapons.

_But experts insist that what is going on is not that unusual and that the incidents are unconnected._ [110]

In 2013 we're talking about massive bee deaths – I guess we've forgotten about the birds two years ago. What about the fish, the dolphins and the krill? Is any of this related?

Since this is a book about the environment vs. politics, let's see what they're doing about it.

The mysterious animal deaths continue to pile up.

This time, authorities in Maryland are investigating after about 2 million fish washed up in Chesapeake Bay.

It's just the latest in a string of baffling animal deaths reported around the world. The growing list of casualties includes birds, fish, and crabs coming up dead in Arkansas, England, Sweden, and as far away as New Zealand.

And while theories of pending apocalypse have been bandied about, officials have a simpler explanation for the latest mass die-off in Maryland: cold weather.

" _Natural causes appear to be the reason," the Maryland Department of the Environment said in a news release. "Cold-water stress exacerbated by a large population of the affected species (juvenile spot fish) appears to be the cause of the kill."_

_Water quality was also ruled out as a possible culprit for the mass die-off, officials said._ [111]

Cold water stress and not water quality?

Do you see how ridiculous the web of lies has become? They can't keep up.

I thought we were in the midst of catastrophic global warming?

Isn't that what the politicians and their scientists have been telling us ever since Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth? If so, how can cold water stress fish to the point of mass die-offs?

Off the coast of Peru, the largest die-off of dolphins occurred last year – but most people with 24-7 access to news and the Internet have never seen an article about it.

[April 2012] When a retired fisherman called to report that about 1,500 dolphins had washed up dead on Peru's northern coast, veterinarian Carlos Yaipén's first reaction was, "That's impossible." But when Yaipén traveled up the coast last week, he counted 615 dead dolphins along a 135-kilometer stretch of coastline. Now, the death toll could be as high as 2,800, based on volunteers' counts. Peru's massive dolphin die-off is among the largest ever reported worldwide. The strandings, which began in January, are a marine mystery that may never be unraveled. The causes could be acoustic impact from testing for oil or perhaps an unknown disease. In addition, stress or toxic contaminants can make marine mammals more vulnerable to pathogens such as viruses, said Peter Ross, a research scientist at Canada's Institute of Ocean Sciences. In a mass die-off, "there might be a smoking gun, but often we find that it's two or three or four factors," said Ross...

Persistent organic pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, the pesticide DDT, dioxins and flame-retardants accumulate in fish, and the concentrations are magnified as they move up the food web to top predators such as dolphins, seals and sea lions...

In 1987 and 1988, about 700 bottlenose dolphins died along the Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Florida. That may have depleted the coastal stock by more than 50 percent. Scientists concluded that the dolphins, which had bacterial and viral infections, were immune-suppressed.

_Then, in the early 1990s, large numbers of striped dolphins – estimated at several thousand -- died in the Mediterranean Sea, starting in Spain. Infection by a morbillivirus was apparently the cause, but immune suppression was suspected, too, since the dead dolphins had higher concentrations of contaminants than ones that survived_.

Source:  Environmental Health News, Barbara Fraser April 2012

Immune suppression? Do you think humans may become affected? Here's a thought. Humans are part of the web of life. What happens to the web happens to him. Immune suppression in humans is more commonly known as cancer. The cancer industry is covered in Volume 5: Big Pharma vs. Health and Wellness.

I challenge you to reconsider your priorities if you want to improve your environment and subsequently, your own personal health. I challenge you to make time to discover and fight for your personal, local, communal, and regional environments so your quality of life and health can be as good as possible while you're on the planet. Ask questions. Learn to become a responsible global citizen by becoming interdependent with nature, not independent from it.

[2013] A study on bee health released in May by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggested a host of factors are contributing to the rising death toll.

Those include parasites and disease, poor honeybee nutrition and a lack of genetic diversity among bee colonies. The report also suggested exposure to pesticides may play a role in killing bees, but noted that additional research is needed.

_The role pesticides play in killing honeybees is a high-profile issue. Many environmental groups — and local beekeepers — say it is a significant factor. Protests took place across the nation recently, including in Nashville, against Monsanto, the Missouri-based agriculture giant that produces everything from pesticides to genetically modified seeds. The bee issue was among the concerns for protesters._ [112]

The government is attempting to link the bee deaths to anything BUT Monsanto, but the public is growing wise.

_Monsanto_ _is considered the mother of agricultural biotechnology. The company produces biotechnology, genomics and herbicides for corn, cotton, oil seeds, and vegetables. It produces genetically altered seeds to tolerate it's flagship product, Roundup. Monsanto also produces Asgrow, DEKALB, Deltapine, and Seminis seeds. Other products have included Agent Orange, the now ubiquitous PCBs, DDT, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) and Aspartame._

_Monsanto is one of the "Big 6" Biotech Corporations, along with BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical Company, DuPont and Syngenta. In the fiscal year ending in August of 2010, the company reported sales of approximately 10.5 billion dollars and had 27,600 employees._ [113]

If the poison can be airborne, does it not make sense it could become waterborne as well? And as we sit and watch the bees die from airborne toxins, have you stopped to think about the fact their air is the same as your air?

Scientists study massive krill die-off on Northern California coast

[July 15, 2013] EUREKA -- Scientists are trying to determine what caused millions of shrimp-like critters known as krill to die and wash ashore along 250 miles of coast from northern California to southern Oregon last month.

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports one theory is that a shift in winds caught the animals near the ocean surface and caused them to be swept ashore.

"Once they get into the surf line they are in trouble," said Joe Tyburczy, a scientist with the California Sea Grant Extension in Eureka, a coordinator of the investigation.

_Scientists say the strandings were reported from Newport, Ore., to McKinleyville in northern Humboldt County in mid-June, making it the geographically largest krill die-off on record._ [114]

If you research the story, another theory was a low level of oxygen in the water, which may have contributed to the massive die-off. Additionally, most of the dead krill were fertilized females, they said. Did you know that low levels of oxygen in the oceans are referred to Dead Zones?

[2010] Oceans have always had areas that have had little to no oxygen in places. Scientists are concerned that these areas are growing in the last few years. Hypoxia, low oxygen levels, has occurred deep in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans for many years. What concerns scientists is that these regions of low oxygen seem to be spreading. Scientists have discovered that ocean oxygen levels are decreasing nearly every year in some areas of the ocean. It is believed that ocean oxygen levels have decreased by about 34 percent in the last 50 years in some areas of the ocean.

Scientists believe that the lessening of oxygen in parts of the ocean is being cause by climate change that is occurring around the world. One study showed that oceans are absorbing greenhouse gasses and carbon monoxide, which in turn causes the surface of oceans to become warmer.

_Some experts say that agricultural runoff and pollution flowing in the Mississippi and Columbia rivers are adding to the dead zones in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans._ [115]

Agricultural runoff? As in toxic pesticides, fertilizers and GMO's?

What's so significant about this die-off? Krill are an important component of the ocean's food chain and sustain everything from salmon to whales.

I could search for additional species die-offs and I would find plenty but context is important here as I close out this volume of The Book of Change.

Mass extinction events have occurred on the earth before and they will again. According to one source, _The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived._ [116]

Invasive species have caused mass extinction before. They starve out the other species, one at a time. Are humans the invasive species to cause the next one?

An invasive species is defined legally in the USA as "An alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health...'Alien species' means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species...that is not native to that ecosystem."

_Invasive species are a major threat to our environment because they (1) can change habitats and alter ecosystem function and ecosystem services, (2) crowd out or replace native species, and (3) damage human activities, costing the economy millions of dollars. For example, costs to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and other human activities by introduced species are estimated at $137 billion per year to the U.S. economy alone_.[117]

Interesting that the Encyclopedia of Life's definition exempts humans as an invasive species. Perhaps therein lies the answer to our problems.

We can look to the Government and to Science to fund, research, measure and quantify data over endless more weeks, years, and months so they can tell us what 'might' be going on. But if you look deep within yourselves, you will already know the answer. There is enough information contained in this book and the additional volumes of The Book of Change to begin your own quest for your own meaning of your own life but you have to start asking questions, and lots of them.

There are two sides to life – the same two sides that Daniel Quinn's Ishmael talked about when the teacher sought a student to help save the world. There are Leavers and there are Takers. Which one are you?

Suggested Movie

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Samsara (2011)

Suggested Reading

The Declaration of Interdependence: A Pledge for Planet Earth, Dr. Tara Cullis/Dr. David Suzuki (1992)

Suggested Song

Save the World, Swedish House Mafia (2012)

Notes

[1] www.climatecrisis.net, What is Global Warming, Retrieved March 26, 2012

[2] The 10 easiest ways to 'green' your home, MSN Real Estate, Ann Archer, <http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=13107876>, 2012, Retrieved May 8, 2012

[3] Not Made in America: Top 10 Ways Wal-Mart Destroys US Manufacturing Jobs  http://www.demos.org/publication/not-made-america-top-10-ways-Wal-Mart-destroys-us-manufacturing-jobs

[4] Keystone XL Pipeline and the K-Fast Bill,  http://poe.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8549&Itemid=, Retrieved September 24, 2012

[5] Governments Spent 409Billion Subsidizing Fossil Fuels in 2010, Aimee Duffy, March 13, 2012,  http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-13/markets/31158815_1_oil-prices-oil-companies-peak-oil-theory, Retrieved June 1, 2012

[6] Watergate Scandal, <http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/watergate.htm>, Retrieved October 11, 2012

[7] <http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/>, Retrieved June 3, 2012

[8] 2011 Farm Subsidy Data Base,  http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000&regname=UnitedStatesFarmSubsidySummary, Retrieved May 9,2012

[9] As Ethanol Booms, Critics Warn of Environmental Effect, Erica Gies, August 2012, New York Times,  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/business/energy-environment/25iht-rbogeth.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www, Retrieved September 20, 2012

[10] Brazil's Ethanol Story, Oil and Gas Journal, Bob Tippee,  http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-18/regular-features/journally-speaking/brazil-s-ethanol-story.html, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[11] Brazil's Ethanol Program, An Insider's View,  http://www.energytribune.com/834/brazils-ethanol-program-an-insiders-view, Retrieved October 17, 2012

[12] Brazil Ethanol Drive, By Raymond Colitt and Stephan Nielsen - Mar 13, 2012,  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-13/brazil-ethanol-slows.html, Retrieved May 29, 2012

[13] Biofuels: Brazil disputes cost of sugar in the tank, The Guardian, Terry Macalister in Sertãozinho , Tuesday 10 June 2008,  http://www.commercialpressuresonland.org/press/biofuels-brazil-disputes-cost-sugar-tankethanol-producers-cut-carbon-still-come-under-fire

[14] Biofuels, National Geographic Magazine, Joel K. Bourne Jr.,  http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text/2, Retrieved October 17, 2012

[15] Opportunity for Profit, Ethanol Retailers, <http://www.e85fuel.com/opportunity-for-profit/>, Retrieved May 8, 2012, Replaced October 15, 2012 with <http://www.ethanolretailer.com/the-ethanol-retailer-advantage/>

[16]  http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2011-e85-vehicle-buying-guide.htm, Retrieved October 15, 2012

[17] Same Dirty Fuel, Same Dirty Tricks, Aaron Turpen,  http://aboutalternativecars.com/2012/10/same-dirty-fuel-same-dirty-tricks/, Retrieved October 15, 2012

[18]Stock Markets Crash to new Lows as Congress says No to Auto Bailout <http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7414.html>, Retrieved October 15, 2012

[19] Electric Cars get 2.4 Million Government Boost, Steve Hargreaves, CNN Money, <http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/05/technology/batteries/index.htm>, Retrieved September 26, 2012

[20] Federal Policies Promoting Electric Vehicles, Anita Leinhert,  http://www.insideline.com/nissan/leaf/federal-policies-promoting-electric-vehicles-to-cost-75-billion-by-2019.html, September 21, 2012

[21] <http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/>, Retrieved October 15, 2012

[22] <http://www.worldometers.info/cars/>, Retrieved October 15, 2012

[23] GM to launch industry first eco-label for cars, Leslie Gueverra, GreenBiz.com, January 27, 2012, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[24]  http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/category/drive_clean/STDPROD_075529.html, Retrieved October 17, 2012

[25] Ontario's Drive Clean, Wikepedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario's_Drive_Clean>, Retrieved May 8, 2012

[26] The four biggest 'green' marketing scams, MSNBC, Amy Tennery, The Big Money, April 22, 2009.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30334853/ns/business-retail/t/four-biggest-green-marketing-scams/, Retrieved May 8, 2012

[27] Green Products Greener Profits, Navdeep Sodhi, April 22, 2009,  http://isixsigmapricing.com/blog/2009/04/22/green-products-greener-profits/, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[28] <http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index>, Retrieved October 15, 2012

[29] <http://www.showcasewindows.com/tax-credit>, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[30] Not That Green, NPR, <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125912545>, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[31] Smart Meters,  http://www.hydroone.com/MyHome/MyAccount/MyMeter/Pages/SmartMeters.aspx

[32] Obama's latest 3.4 billion grant means big business, Andy Obermueller,  http://www.streetauthority.com/government-action/obamas-latest-34-billion-grant-means-big-profits-green-industrys-shareholder-936, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[33] Corporate Watch: Haliburton, A Corporate Profile, <http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=274>, Retrieved July 8, 2013

[34] Tally of Interests on Climate Bill Tops a Thousand, Marianne Lavelle, August 10, 2009,  http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/08/10/2799/tally-interests-climate-bill-tops-thousand, Retrieved March 27, 2012

[35] Uganda Oil, Experts warn of Environmental Crises, <http://allafrica.com/stories/201206151284.html>, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[36] The Benefits of Nuclear Energy, <http://www.fi.edu/guide/wester/benefits.html>, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[37]  http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

[38] The U.S. Press: Top Ten Nuclear Lies, <http://www.culturechange.org/n_power.htm>, Retrieved July 21, 2013

[39] <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html>, Updated 2012, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[40] Radiation and Mercury in Fish, Joseph Keon,  http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/radiation-and-mercury-in-fish-should-americans-be-concerned/, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[41] UNSCEAR assessments of the Chernobyl accident, <http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html>, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[42]  http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[43] Chernobyl Death Toll: 4000 or 1 Million?  http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/Chernobyl-Death-Toll-4000-or-1-Million-7272.aspx, Keith Goetzman, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[44] BMJ Exposes WHO Corruption,  http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/bmj-exposes-who-corruption-37268.html, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[45] <http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/waste01.html>, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[46]  http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GlobalWarming.htm, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[47] India to Launch Mission to Mars 2013, Tariq Malik, August 17, 2012, Space.com, <http://www.space.com/17159-india-mars-mission-2013.html>, Retrieved September 24, 2012

[48] Searching for Another Earth,  http://www.technologyreview.com/news/418081/searching-for-another-earth/, Retrieved July 21, 2013

[49]  http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GlobalWarming.htm, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[50] Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Climate Change Connection,  http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/Science/Greenhouseeffect.htm, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[51] Health Physics Society: Specialists in Radiation, Dade W. Moeller, PhD, CHP, <http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q824.html>, 2001, Retrieved September 25, 2012

[52] Fossil Fuel, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/f/fossil_fuel.htm>, Retrieved July 21, 2013

[53] What are Carbon Emissions?, <http://www.thecarbonaccount.com/carbonexplained/>, Retrieved July 21, 2013

[54] Defined as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide produced by MOTOR VEHICLES and industrialized processes

[55] Kyoto Protocol, <http://www.kyotoprotocol.com/default.aspx>, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[56] Report 4: What is being done to control Global Warming? Hinkle Charitable Foundation, <http://www.thehcf.org/emaila4.html>, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[57] Canada to Withdraw from Kyoto Protocol, December 13, 2011, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310>, Retrieved May 9, 2012

[58] 10 Reasons to Oppose Bill C38, Chloe Makepeace,  http://rabble.ca/news/2012/06/ten-reasons-oppose-conservatives-bill-c-38, Retrieved October 18,2012

[59] Passing of Bill C 38, June 2012,  http://wildernesscommittee.org/press_release/passing_bill_c_38_major_setback_environmental_protection_canada, Retrieved October 18, 2012

[60] <http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/42555>, Retrieved October 16, 2012

[61] Eradicating Ecoside in Canada: How Evidence Died, Ron Hart,  http://www.eradicatingecocideincanada.org/2012/07/how-evidence-died/, Retrieved October 17, 2012

[62] Ishmael, Daniel Quinn, p80-82

[63] How much do we Drink?, The Environmental Working Group, <http://www.ewg.org/bottled-water-2011-how-much-do-we-drink>, Retrieved March 28, 2012

[64] U.S. Bottled Water Sale Hits New Record High in 2011, Mat McDermott, treehugger.com,  http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/united-states-bottled-water-sales-new-record-high-2011.html, Retrieved September 25, 2012

[65] <http://www.worldometers.info/water/>

[66] World Water and Food to 2025 PDF, Rosegrant, Cai, Kline, Pg 7,8,9

[67] Sustaining our Water Supply, Environment Canada,  http://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=F25C70EC-1, Retrieved March 29, 2012

[68] What is septic effluent?, www.wisegeek.com, Retrieved March 29, 2012

[69] Inside Walkerton, CBC News Canada, May 17, 2010,  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/10/f-walkerton-water-ecoli.html, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[70] E.Coli Outbreak in Alberta: Remembering Walkerton,  http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/10/03/e-coli-outbreak-in-alberta-remembering-walkerton/

[71] Water crisis strikes Chinese city, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4462158.stm>, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[72] How is L.A. Like Ancient Rome?  http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/la-ancient-rome2.htm, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[73] China admits Three Gorges Dam has 'urgent problems' as drought persists,  http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/25/china.three.gorges.dam/, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[74] Pepsi Admits Aquafina Comes from Tap Water, Mike Adams, Editor of naturalnews.com, <http://www.naturalnews.com/021962.html>, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[75] Energy From Shale,  http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydraulic-fracturing/what-is-fracking, Retrieved July 21, 2013

[76]  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=homepage&, Retrieved October 30, 2012

[77] Toxic brew of chemicals abound in wake of superstorm Sandy, Paul E. McGinniss, November 1, 2012, <http://ecowatch.org/2012/toxic-brew-sandy/>, Retrieved November 2, 2012

[78] Big Storms and Fracking: What's at stake?  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/big_storms_and_fracking_whats.html, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[79] Ishmael, Daniel Quinn, P 138-140

[80]  http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/world-population-growth-drives-the-climate-ethos.html

[81] OAS: When Raw Fruit is Forbidden, Colleen Seto, Allergic Living,  http://allergicliving.com/index.php/2010/07/02/oral-allergy-syndrome-a-life-without-fruit/, Retrieved March 28, 2012

[82] Fruit and Vegetable Allergies Soaring, BBC News, Sue Emmett, April 15, 2009, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7988483.stm>, Retrieved March 28, 2012

[83] Research links cancer to fruits and vegetables, Robin McKie, February 17, 2002, The Observer, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/17/medicalscience.research>, Retrieved March 29, 2012

[84] Negative Effects of Pesticides, www.livestrong.com, K. Gregg Elliott, June 4, 2012, Retrieved March 29, 2012

[85]  http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/research-roundup-herbicide-toxicity-vastly-underestimated, Retrieved October 27, 2012

[86] www.celiac.com

[87] About Celiac Disease,  http://www.celiac.ca/index.php/about-celiac-disease-2/symptoms-treatment-cd, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[88] Wheat Intolerance, FIA: Food Intolerance Awareness, <http://www.foodintoleranceawareness.org/wheat.htm>, Retrieved March 28, 2012

[89] Wheat: A Plant that Changed the World, Developed by the John Innes Centre & Institute of Food Research, <http://www.allaboutwheat.info/history.html>, Retrieved March 28, 2012

[90] What is Selenium? www.wisegeek.com, Retrieved March 28, 2012

[91] Meat Allergy: A New Concern, Diana Rodriguez, <http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/meat-allergy.aspx>, Retrieved October 30, 2012

[92] Slaughterhouses and Processing, Sustainable Table, <http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/processing/>, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[93]  http://globalnews.ca/news/717567/the-fda-will-limit-arsenic-in-apple-juice-to-same-levels-allowed-in-drinking-water/, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[94] China pulls nearly 6000 dead pigs from Shanghai river, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-21766377>, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[95] China birdflu outbreak devastating poultry sales,  http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jo9oLM42U6tWeSbrmaoEEHvBVUKA?docId=CNG.4642b53fa00e71e5f4566154c89d897b.b1, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[96] Inside the Slaughterhouse, Eric Schlosser, Author Fast Food Nation,  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/slaughter/slaughterhouse.html, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[97] USDA Recalls 143 million pounds of beef, Associated Press, March 3, 2008,  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23212514/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/usda-recalls-million-pounds-beef/, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[98] XL Foods Recall: E-Coli Results in Biggest Beef Recall in Canadian History,  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/02/xl-foods-recall-biggest-in-history_n_1933714.html, Retrieved October 26, 2012

[99] Factory Farming Facts, <http://www.belsandia.com/factory-farming.html>, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[100] Farmed or Wild Fish?, Elizabeth Landau, CNN, January 13, 2010,  http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-13/health/salmon.farmed.fresh_1_salmon-consumption-wild-salmon-atlantic-salmon?_s=PM:HEALTH, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[101] The farmed seafood you're eating may have been raised on animal feces,  http://www.naturalnews.com/037576_farmed_seafood_animal_feces_china.html, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[102] Allergic to Meat? ABC News, Dan Childs, March 3, 2010,  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AllergiesFood/meat-allergies-12-unusual-allergic-reactions-revealed/story?id=9975777, Retrieved March 29, 2012

[103] Eat Right For Your Blood Type" based on the book "Eat Right 4 Your Type" by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo,  http://www.runtheplanet.com/trainingracing/nutrition/bloodtype.asp, Retrieved March 29, 2012

[104] Lactose Intolerance Linked to Ancestral Environment, Science Daily, June 2005, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050602012109.htm>, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[105] The Dangers of Cow's Milk, Linda Folden Palmer, D.C., The Natural Child Project, <http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/linda_folden_palmer.html>, Retrieved March 30, 2012

[106] Why GMO's Are Bad, Jean Scheid, <http://organic.lovetoknow.com/Why_GMOs_Are_Bad>, Retrieved September 25, 2012

[107] Seeds of Deception By Jeffrey M. Smith A 10-Page Summary, <http://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pg>, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[108] Bees Dying the Millions in Canada,  http://politicalblindspot.org/bees-dying-by-the-millions-in-canada/, July 15, 2013

[109] Honey Bees Dying, <http://www.beesfree.biz/The%20Buzz/bees-dying>, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[110] The Mystery of Mass Bird Deaths, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12135380>, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[111] Today in massive wildlife deaths: 2 million fish dead in Maryland,  http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2011/01/06/today_in_massive_wildlife_deaths_2_million_fish_dead_in_maryland.html, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[112] Scientists take swat at honey bee loss,  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/03/scientists-honeybee-loss/2386191/

[113] <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto>

[114]  http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_23662914/scientists-study-massive-krill-die-off-northern-california, Retrieved July 15, 2013

[115] Current Events: Low Oxygen Levels in the Ocean Cause Scientists Concern, Robin Stark-Humphrey, Yahoo Contributor, 2010,  http://voices.yahoo.com/current-events-low-oxygen-levels-ocean-cause-5620336.html?cat=58

[116] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events>, Retrieved July 17, 2013

[117] Encyclopedia of Life, What is an Invasive Species, <http://eol.org/info/460>, Retrieved July 17, 2013

