Wisdom Magazine's Monthly Webzine

Wisdom is a web compendium of information with articles, services and products and resources related to holistic health, spirituality and metaphysics.

Home About This Month's Articles Calendar of Events Classified Listings
Educational Programs Sacred Journeys & Retreats Holistic Resource Directory
Article Archives Wisdom Marketplace Web Partner Links
Advertising Information

EarthTalk®

by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is currently being done in the U.S. to ensure the wise use and safety of our nation’s groundwater? -- Kevin Orr, Baton Rouge, LA

Keeping fresh water safe and abundant is a challenge for all societies. In the U.S., about half of the country’s drinking water comes from groundwater sources. Many rural areas derive all of their drinking water from groundwater, which also provides 40 percent of the irrigation needs of American farmers. While underground aquifers may at one point have seemed limitless, huge demand for water (especially in arid areas like the Southwest) means that groundwater reserves are precious and need to be carefully managed with conservation in mind. Also, groundwater is easily contaminated by any number of common man-made products like gasoline, oil, road salts, pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals.

Management of specific water supplies is decentralized—local and regional water authorities manage supplies for municipalities and counties around the country—but oversight comes from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as mandated by the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Enacted in 1972, the Clean Water Act addresses water pollution in general and requires everyone, but especially large water users including large industrial and agricultural operations, to deal with their water inflows and outflows in a responsible, non-polluting manner. Meanwhile, 1974’s Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to set standards for drinking water quality that the 150,000 public water entities across the country must meet. Third party laboratories provide detailed analyses to ensure that local supplies live up to the EPA’s expectations. These laws work together to keep groundwater supplies safe, but environmentalists would like to see both strengthened substantially in the face of drought-inducing global warming and other threats.

While regulation and enforcement of industry and agriculture are important for protecting our limited groundwater supplies, consumers also must play a role. The Groundwater Foundation, a Nebraska-based non-profit working to educate people and inspire action to ensure sustainable, clean groundwater for future generations, suggests taking short showers, shutting off the faucet while brushing teeth and shaving, running full loads of dishes and laundry, checking for leaky faucets and getting them fixed, and watering plants and the lawn only when necessary. Likewise, the group advocates that consumers recycle used motor oils, limit the amount of fertilizer and pesticides used on plants, lawns and gardens, and generally reduce household chemical use. And leftover chemicals should be disposed of at hazardous waste collection sites (find one near you at earth911.com), not down the drain or into the gutter.

Another way to help is to initiate a Source Water Protection process, which involves locating local groundwater sources and identifying ways to protect and conserve them. Anyone interested in doing so can download the Groundwater Foundation’s free Source Water Assessment and Protection Workshop Guide, which has detailed information about a number of source water protection strategies and additional information on areas where the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act intersect. Funding for the guide was provided by the EPA’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, which considers it a must-read for officials, policymakers and activists deliberating land use and water quality issues.

CONTACTS: Groundwater Foundation, www.groundwater.org; EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, www.epa.gov/aboutepa/ow.html#ground.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is the Burrowing Owl Conservation Network and why is it so important to put so much effort into saving one species? -- Ginny Bateman, Portland, OR

Western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) are tiny, long-legged members of the owl family, native to the Americas and preferring open landscapes where they can dig new holes or use existing ones (such as abandoned prairie dog, skunk or armadillo homes) to nest and rear their young. Unlike most other owl species, these small but charismatic birds are more often seen out and about during daylight hours, but they are most active and do their primary feeding at night, preferring a diet of small rodents and large insects.

Once a common species in California and across North America, the Western burrowing owl has become a rarer and rarer sight over the last three decades given habitat loss and other environmental perils the bird faces. Biologists consider the bird an indicator of wider ecosystem health, so if its population numbers are healthy then local ecosystems are likely thriving. But these days the bird is endangered in Canada and threatened in Mexico, is a state endangered species in Colorado, and is considered a “species of special concern” in Florida and most of the western U.S. It is also listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) international “Red List” of endangered and threatened species (albeit as a species of “Least Concern” in comparison with others in more dire straits).

A group of dedicated birders, conservationists, biologists and concerned citizens in San Francisco’s East Bay came together to protect dwindling burrowing owl populations locally but ended up creating a movement that spans the entire North American continent. Their group, the Burrowing Owl Conservation Network (BOCN) believes that burrowing owls are vital to maintaining healthy, functioning ecosystems, and as such is working on several fronts to help protect habitat and reverse the animal’s population slide.

First and foremost, BOCN works to conserve habitat for burrowing owls in California and beyond, including constructing artificial burrows to help re-establish burrowing owl colonies while larger ecosystem restoration efforts are underway. Teaching children and communities about ways they can help protect and improve burrowing owl habitat is another important part of BOCN’s work. Other ways the group helps the owls is by advocating for legislation and policy changes that encourage conservation of habitat, networking with like-minded individuals and institutions, and conducting field and laboratory research to increase understanding about how to help burrowing owls and create habitat conditions ideal for their survival.

The fact that burrowing owl populations in other parts of the world are rebounding gives hope to BOCN and other wildlife advocates and environmentalists. The birds are common and widespread in Central and South America, where they inhabit fields and even sometimes parks in urban areas.

Whether the birds can replicate their success in Latin America up north remains to be seen. As for what readers can do to help, learning about the behavior, biology and habitat needs of wild animals like the burrowing owl is a sure way to develop respect for nature’s inhabitants and a lifelong willingness to protect them. And nothing beats witnessing burrowing owls go about their rounds. Seeing them in the wild is enough to convince anyone that they are worth fighting to protect.

CONTACTS: BOCN, www.burrowingowlconservation.org; IUCN Red List, www.iucnredlist.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that cutting and burning trees adds more global warming pollution to the atmosphere than all the cars and trucks in the world combined? -- Mitchell Vale, Houston, TX

By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation.

The reason that logging is so bad for the climate is that when trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere, where it mingles with greenhouse gases from other sources and contributes to global warming accordingly. The upshot is that we should be doing as much to prevent deforestation as we are to increase fuel efficiency and reduce automobile usage.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a leading green group, 32 million acres of tropical rainforest were cut down each year between 2000 and 2009—and the pace of deforestation is only increasing. “Unless we change the present system that rewards forest destruction, forest clearing will put another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in coming decades…,” says EDF.

“Any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently—and in time—to avoid dangerous consequences must rely in part on preserving tropical forests,” reports EDF. But it’s hard to convince the poor residents of the Amazon basin and other tropical regions of the world to stop cutting down trees when the forests are still worth more dead than alive. “Conservation costs money, while profits from timber, charcoal, pasture and cropland drive people to cut down forests,” adds EDF. Exacerbating global warming isn’t the only negative impact of tropical deforestation. It also wipes out biodiversity: More than half of the world’s plant and animal species live in tropical rainforests.

One way some tropical countries are reducing deforestation is through participation in the United Nations’ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) program. REDD essentially works to establish incentives for the people who care for the forest to manage it sustainably while still being able to benefit economically. Examples include using less land (and therefore cutting fewer trees) for activities such as coffee growing and meat and milk production. Participating nations can then accrue and sell carbon pollution credits when they can prove they have lowered deforestation below a baseline. The REDD program has channeled over $117 million in direct financial aid and educational support into national deforestation reduction efforts in 44 developing countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America since its 2008 inception.

Brazil is among the countries embracing REDD among other efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Thanks to the program, Brazil has slowed deforestation within its borders by 40 percent since 2008 and is on track to achieve an 80 percent reduction by 2020. Environmentalists are optimistic that the initial success of REDD in Brazil bodes well for reducing deforestation in other parts of the tropics as well.

CONTACTS: WCN, www.worldcarfree.net; EDF, www.edf.org; REDD, www.un-redd.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is the “Bluesign” standard for textiles? Which if any well known manufacturers are embracing it? -- Karin Romano, Bristol, CT

Bluesign is an emerging standard for environmental health and safety in the manufacturing of textiles. The Switzerland-based organization, officially known as Bluesign Technologies AG, provides independent auditing of textile mills, examining manufacturing processes from raw materials and energy inputs to water and air emissions outputs. Each component is assessed based on its ecotoxicological impact. Bluesign ranks its audit findings in order of concern, and suggests ways to reduce consumption while recommending alternatives to harmful chemicals or processes where applicable. Textile mills that commit to verifiably adopting Bluesign’s recommendations can become certified “System Partners” and attract business from a wide range of brands and retailers around the world looking for greener vendors.

Eco-aware consumers can feel confident purchasing clothing items with the Bluesign label that they are buying the most environmentally friendly, socially conscious version of the jacket, shirt, sweater, pants, hat or gloves in question. Given the push for greener products of every kind, Bluesign has gained serious traction in the last few years among some of the leading brands in the outdoor clothing and gear business.

Patagonia was Bluesign’s first “brand” member and has been supportive of the program since its inception in 2000. While only 16 percent of the products in its 2012 line contain Bluesign-approved fabrics, the company has set a goal with its suppliers to have all Patagonia fabrics adhere to the standard by 2015.

The North Face is a newer partner for Bluesign, but no less committed: The company has been going gangbusters for the standard since 2010, and offers several clothing items made with at least 90 percent Bluesign-approved fabrics. Over the two years it has been converting its supply chain over to Bluesign-approved vendors, The North Face has saved 85 Olympic swimming pools worth of water, 38 tanker trucks worth of chemicals, and carbon emissions similar to taking some 1,100 cars off the road for a year.

Another leading outdoor clothing manufacturer embracing Bluesign is Norway’s Helly Hansen. In its 2012 line, more than 100 of Helly Hansen’s 500 products contain fabrics that meet the Bluesign standard; that number is expected to increase by 50 percent in 2013. Helly Hansen would go fully Bluesign except that some of its specialty products that need to be flame retardant do not meet the standard. The company is optimistic, however, that textile makers can solve that problem—and then it can offer a 100 percent Bluesign-approved product line. Some of the other big outdoor brands that have teamed up with Bluesign include REI and Canada’s Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC).

Whether Bluesign catches on more widely in this dog-eat-dog, economically stressed business climate remains to be seen. “Earning Bluesign approval costs mills and suppliers time and money,” reports MEC. “They have to be convinced they’ll get a return on their investment in the form of increased demand for their products from manufacturers like MEC and ultimately from consumers.”

CONTACTS: Bluesign Technologies, www.bluesign.com; Patagonia, www.patagonia.com; The North Face, www.thenorthface.com; Helly Hansen, www.hellyhansen.com; REI, www.rei.com; MEC, www.mec.ca.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are the new nutrition standards for school lunches that have some students boycotting their cafeterias and discarding the food? -- Melissa Makowsky, Trenton, NJ

Indeed, some 31 million American kids participating in the federally supported National School Lunch Program have been getting more whole grains, beans, fruits and vegetables in their diets—whether they like it or not. The change is due to new school meal standards unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) last January, per the order of 2010’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. The new standards are based on the Institute of Medicine’s science-based recommendations, and are the first upgrade to nutritional standards for school meals since 1995 when low- and no-fat foods were all the rage.

The non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) believes the new standards represent an important milestone in efforts to improve the dietary habits and health of increasingly obese American kids. “Schools’ misguided reliance on processed foods for speedy, low-labor cost production, industry’s $1.6 billion in child-targeted advertising and a lack of faith in our children’s dietary curiosity [have] created a generation of ‘picky eaters’ with dull palates,” reports the group. “With nearly 17 percent of America’s children now clinically obese and a staggering 32 percent overweight, the time is long past to address the unhealthy food environments our children live in.”

The new standards limit calories per meal to 850 for high school meals, 700 for middle school and 650 for elementary and more than double the mandated minimum servings of fruits and vegetables while reducing the sodium, saturated fats and trans fats in school kids’ diets. Whole-grain foods, beans and dark green and orange vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, carrots and sweet potatoes have replaced things like pizza and French fries as staple items in schools that follow the program.

Of course, not everybody likes the changes. Lunch strikes, Facebook protest pages, Twitter campaigns, YouTube parody videos and other means have been utilized coast-to-coast to voice opposition to the healthier meals. Some affected cafeterias blame the new smaller portions and healthier fare for causing as much as a 70 percent drop-off in school lunch program participation since the new standards took effect.

Psychologists understand that kids may not come around to new foods right away but will eventually eat them—so the federal government and most participating schools are sticking to their guns. And the USDA says that if a school “encounters significant hardships employing the new calorie requirements, we stand ready to work with them quickly and effectively to remedy the situation with additional flexibilities.”

The benefits of the new standards far outweigh the costs. “School meals can help children develop healthy eating habits—or they can prime them for a life of poor health and unnecessary suffering,” says EWG.

EWG lauds the new standards for significantly expanding access to and appreciation of nourishing food. Whether they can help shift eating norms across the country remains to be seen, but regardless millions of American kids will likely now get their healthiest meals of the day on a tray in their school cafeterias.

CONTACTS: EWG, www.ewg.org; National School Lunch Program, www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/; Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/cnr_2010.htm.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: A friend of mine told me that our government kills thousands of wild animals like bears and wolves every year in the name of protecting livestock. How can the government, which is supposed to protect dwindling numbers of animals, instead be killing them? -- Amy Pratt, Troy, NY

Actually, the federal government kills some 100,000 carnivores every year under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Wildlife Services program. While the program does much more than so-called “predator control”—threatened and endangered species conservation, invasive species mitigation, wildlife disease monitoring, airport bird strike prevention, rabies and rodent control—killing bears, wolves, coyotes and mountain lions to protect livestock does take up $100 million of the federal budget each year.

Animal advocates say it’s not fair to kill animals owned in essence by the public trust and indispensable to ecosystem health just to protect privately held livestock, let alone spend millions of tax dollars doing it.

“Working directly with commercial operators and state and local governments, Wildlife Services uses a combination of lethal control methods, like trapping, aerial gunning, poisoning, and denning (killing young in their dens), and some non-lethal control methods,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “But driven by narrow agricultural interests, these predator control activities often ignore the greater public need for a healthy environment, fiscal responsibility, and safe public lands.”

NRDC cites USDA statistics showing that most livestock losses result from weather, disease, illness and birthing problems—not predation. They also argue that the lethal methods employed by Wildlife Services have led to dozens of human and pet injuries and deaths and degrade ecosystems that rely on healthy predator populations to function. Also the two most commonly used poisons, Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, go beyond killing animals and wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.

Predator Defense, another group committed to ending federal predator control efforts, says that it is important to maintain healthy populations of the very predators Wildlife Services works to kill. When, for instance, predators are around to keep deer and elk populations in check, more and varied kinds of plants are given space and time to grow, in turn preserving and creating habitat for many different species.

“Wildlife Services’ predator control work cries out for reform,” says NRDC. The group recommends bringing more transparency to the process so the public can assess how tax dollars are being used; taking a more scientific approach instead of centering the program around the demands of commercial interests; holding the program to higher environmental standards; ending the cruelest, most hazardous and environmentally harmful killing methods; and requiring non-lethal methods when possible.

There has been no decisive legislation to stop predator control efforts, but a bill introduced into the House by California Republican John Campbell III calls for amending the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the use of Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide for predator control. The bill (H.R. 4214) was referred to committee and may or may not see a floor vote this year.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Predator Defense, www.predatordefense.org; H.R. 4214, www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4214.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What was Proposition 37 in California that concerns the labeling of genetically modified foods and that was just voted down in that state? -- Peter Tremaine, Euclid, OH

Many healthy food advocates were disheartened on Election Day when Californians rejected Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods across the state. GM foods have had genes from other plants or animals inserted into their genetic code to optimize for one or another trait, such as resistance to pests, better taste or longer shelf life, and are controversial because scientists don’t know the ramifications of mixing genetic codes on such a widespread scale.

While it was close, those against the so-called “California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act” prevailed, with 53.1 percent of the vote. The proposition called on food manufacturers to label foods containing GM ingredients on the front or back of the packaging with the phrase “partially produced with genetic engineering”—and not to label or advertise such foods as “natural.” Proponents developed the proposition in lieu of federal action requiring labeling of GM foods…as exists in 50 other countries.

Proponents of the bill raised some $9 million and garnered some 46.9 percent of the vote, indicating that upwards of four million Californians fear the potential effects of GM foods and are in favor of greater transparency on the part of the food industry. But such efforts weren’t enough to overcome aggressive marketing by so-called Big Food companies including Monsanto, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Nestle and Kraft, who poured some $45 million into the “No on 37” campaign.

Backers of the proposition are crying foul. Public health lawyer Michele Simon reports that some of the companies involved in defeating the bill engaged in lying, scare tactics, misrepresentation and various dirty tricks “to protect their profits and keep California voters uninformed about their food choices.”

“The No campaign listed four organizations in the official state document mailed to voters as concluding that ‘biotech foods are safe’,” she says. “One of them, the American Council on Science and Health, is a notorious industry front group that only sounds legit. Another, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, actually has no position and complained about being listed…” The other two groups, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization, have more nuanced positions...than just “safe.”

Simon also criticizes Big Food for its claims about high food costs, “shakedown lawsuits” and “special interest exemptions” if the law passed: “While each of these claims is easily debunked, being outspent on ad dollars makes it hard to compete, especially when all you can really say is, ‘that’s not true’.”

The battle over GM labeling in California may be over for now, but the war rages on nationally. Just Label It, a nonprofit started by Stonyfield Farm magnate Gary Hirshberg, is trying to persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require GM food labeling nationally. Readers can help by signing the campaign’s online petition. Beyond that, Just Label It recommends eating more fresh vegetables and unprocessed foods (the vast majority of processed foods in the U.S. contain either GM corn or soy) and looking for the USDA Organic label, which precludes any foods containing GM ingredients.

CONTACTS: Yes on 37, www.carighttoknow.org; Just Label It, www.justlabelit.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are “Clean Energy Victory Bonds?” -- Max Blanchard, Wilmington, DE

Green America, a non-profit membership organization that promotes ethical consumerism, created the “Clean Energy Victory Bonds” concept as a way to give everyday Americans the opportunity to invest in clean energy and related fields in a fashion similar to how the federal government raised billions of dollars for the war effort during World War II over a half century ago. At that time, four out of five American households purchased the original Victory Bonds, raising $185 billion (over $2 trillion in today’s dollars) to support the war effort.

Green America first offered up the new spin on the Victory Bond idea in 2009 as something people on both sides of the political spectrum could get behind. The group has been lobbying federal officials and legislators to consider the benefits ever since. New legislation, the Clean Energy Victory Bonds Act of 2012, introduced into the House of Representatives this past August by California Democrat Bob Filner and 10 other co-sponsors, gets Green America a step closer to turning their vision into a reality. More than 40 other non-profit and advocacy groups and green investment institutions have allied with Green America in supporting the legislation as well.

If the bill becomes law, the new Victory Bond program would generate some 1.7 million new jobs in and around the renewable energy sector across the United States, and would extend the imperiled Production Tax Credit and other federal renewable energy incentives for as long as a decade. The beauty of the plan is that it allows everyday Americans to encourage cleaner, greener energy with a minimum investment and a guaranteed return—without requiring any direct budgetary allocations or expenditures by the federal government. Purchasers will be able to get in on the action for as little as $25, and will get the purchase price back plus interest in 10 years. Furthermore, projects supported through Clean Energy Victory Bonds will create jobs and business revenues that will bring in federal tax dollars while simultaneously reducing health and environmental costs nationwide.

The bill was referred to committee and could potentially come up for a floor vote before year end. Green America is encouraging everyday Americans to call their Congressional representatives and ask them to support H.R. 6275. Another way to get behind the effort now is to pledge to buy the bonds (via cleanenergyvictorybonds.org) after the legislation passes.

Yet another way to help is by spreading awareness about the bill and the good that can come from its passage. “Everyone who hears about this strategy loves it, because the bonds advance goals that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind,” reports Green America, urging everyday folks to tweet, blog and talk about the campaign and legislation—and to post a link to cleanenergyvictorybonds.org on their Facebook pages—so more conscientious Americans will find out about and get behind the concept.

CONTACTS: Green America Clean Energy Victory Bonds, www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/CEVB/; H.R. 6275, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr6275ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr6275ih.pdf.

Add Comment

Article Archives This Month's Articles Click Here for more articles by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss