Stop the spread of liquefied natural gas (Reprint from OtherWords).

Shutterstock

Stop the Spread of Liquefied Natural Gas — Before It’s Too Late

A liquefied natural gas disaster could make an oil spill look like a picnic.

By Olivia Alperstein | December 17, 2019

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a potential disaster in the making. That’s the conclusion of a new report by Physicians for Social Responsibility, which surveyed an abundance of research on LNG’s threats to public health.

LNG is natural gas that is filtered and supercooled to -260° F, turning it from gas to liquid. That makes it easier to transport in special cryogenic tankers when pipelines aren’t an option, such as for overseas shipping.

But while the fracking that extracts the gas, and the pipelines that often move it, have generated well-deserved controversy, the risks of LNG haven’t gotten as much attention. They deserve more.

The new report finds significant risks from the extraction process (including gas leaks and air pollution), further pollution from the liquefaction process, and serious risks of fires and explosions.

And I mean serious. A full LNG tanker carries the energy equivalent of 55 atomic bombs. If one caught fire or exploded in a populated area, it could make an oil spill look like a picnic.

Even without exploding, the gas poses serious risks to our climate and health.

LNG is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 84–87 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, which makes it a major contributor to climate change. And the fracking process, the report adds, injects a further “slurry of chemicals” into the surrounding environment. Many are known to contribute to strokes, cancer, and asthma.

LNG export facilities are often located in areas already plagued by dangerous levels of pollution from energy and industrial facilities — often areas with mostly African American, Native American, Hispanic, or low-income families. Facilities may also be sited close to schools and nursing homes.

“Such proximity, often reflecting these communities’ lack of political power, intensifies the impact on vulnerable populations and people with pre-existing health conditions,” the report notes. These communities are also more likely to lack the resources to address environmental health concerns.

Despite these dangers, there has been a boom in LNG production in the United States over the past 15 years. According to federal regulators, there are over 110 LNG facilities operating in the United States.

The United States is exporting record amounts of LNG to the global market right now, and there are plans to expand LNG facilities in many parts of the country. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is pushing an ill-advised proposal to transport LNG by rail.

Expanding these projects would increase pollution, put human health at risk, and increase the risk of catastrophic fires and explosions. It would also sink billions of dollars into infrastructure that would lock the United States into greenhouse emissions for decades to come.

Thanks to the Trump administration’s systematic rollback of critical health and safety protections, we simply don’t have the safeguards to protect ourselves or our planet from fracking, pipelines, or LNG.

As PSR’s new report makes clear, LNG poses a grave risk to our planet, our health, and our future. Instead, we need to demand healthy solutions for our communities. Our health needs to come first — before fossil fuel corporations’ bottom line. It's time for decision makers at all levels to protect their constituents, before it's too late. 

Reprinted with permission from: 

Except where otherwise noted, content from Otherwords.org is licensed under a 
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative 3.0 License.

Reprint: The dark side of plant-based food

The dark side of plant-based food – it's more about money than you may think

There’s more behind that vegan burger than it seems. Nina Firsova/Shutterstock.com

Martin Cohen, University of Hertfordshire and Frédéric Leroy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
If you were to believe newspapers and dietary advice leaflets, you’d probably think that doctors and nutritionists are the people guiding us through the thicket of what to believe when it comes to food. But food trends are far more political – and economically motivated – than it seems.
From ancient Rome, where Cura Annonae – the provision of bread to the citizens – was the central measure of good government, to 18th-century Britain, where the economist Adam Smith identified a link between wages and the price of corn, food has been at the centre of the economy. Politicians have long had their eye on food policy as a way to shape society.
That’s why tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported food and grain were enforced in Britain between 1815 and 1846. These “corn laws” enhanced the profits and political power of the landowners, at the cost of raising food prices and hampering growth in other economic sectors.
Over in Ireland, the ease of growing the recently imported potato plant led to most people living off a narrow and repetitive diet of homegrown potato with a dash of milk. When potato blight arrived, a million people starved to death, even as the country continued to produce large amounts of food – for export to England.

The Irish famine. internetarchivebookimages/flickr

Such episodes well illustrate that food policy has often been a fight between the interests of the rich and the poor. No wonder Marx declared that food lay at the heart of all political structures and warned of an alliance of industry and capital intent on both controlling and distorting food production.

Vegan wars

Many of today’s food debates can also be usefully reinterpreted when seen as part of a wider economic picture. For example, recent years have seen the co-option of the vegetarian movement in a political programme that can have the effect of perversely disadvantaging small-scale, traditional farming in favour of large-scale industrial farming.
This is part of a wider trend away from small and mid-size producers towards industrial-scale farming and a global food market in which food is manufactured from cheap ingredients bought in a global bulk commodities market that is subject to fierce competition. Consider the launch of a whole new range of laboratory created “fake meats” (fake dairy, fake eggs) in the US and Europe, oft celebrated for aiding the rise of the vegan movement. Such trends entrench the shift of political power away from traditional farms and local markets towards biotech companies and multinationals.
Estimates for the global vegan food market now expect it to grow each year by nearly 10% and to reach around US$24.3 billion by 2026. Figures like this have encouraged the megaliths of the agricultural industry to step in, having realised that the “plant-based” lifestyle generates large profit margins, adding value to cheap raw materials (such as protein extracts, starches, and oils) through ultra-processing. Unilever is particularly active, offering nearly 700 vegan products in Europe.

Researchers at the US thinktank RethinkX predict that “we are on the cusp of the fastest, deepest, most consequential disruption” of agriculture in history. They say that by 2030, the entire US dairy and cattle industry will have collapsed, as “precision fermentation” – producing animal proteins more efficiently via microbes – “disrupts food production as we know it”.
Westerners might think that this is a price worth paying. But elsewhere it’s a different story. While there is much to be said for rebalancing western diets away from meat and towards fresh fruits and vegetables, in India and much of Africa, animal sourced foods are an indispensable part of maintaining health and obtaining food security, particularly for women and children and the 800 million poor that subsist on starchy foods.
To meet the 2050 challenges for quality protein and some of the most problematic micronutrients worldwide, animal source foods remain fundamental. But livestock also plays a critical role in reducing poverty, increasing gender equity, and improving livelihoods. Animal husbandry cannot be taken out of the equation in many parts of the world where plant agriculture involves manure, traction, and waste recycling – that is, if the land allows sustainable crop growth in the first place. Traditional livestock gets people through difficult seasons, prevents malnutrition in impoverished communities, and provides economic security.

Boys with their cattle, Tanzania. Magdalena Paluchowska/Shutterstock.com

Follow the money

Often, those championing vegan diets in the west are unaware of such nuances. In April 2019, for example, Canadian conservation scientist, Brent Loken, addressed India’s Food Standards Authority on behalf of EAT-Lancet’s “Great Food Transformation” campaign, describing India as “a great example” because “a lot of the protein sources come from plants”. Yet such talk in India is far from uncontroversial.
The country ranks 102nd out of 117 qualifying countries on the Global Hunger Index, and only 10% of infants between 6–23 months are adequately fed. While the World Health Organization recommends animal source foods as sources of high-quality nutrients for infants, food policy there spearheads an aggressive new Hindu nationalism that has led to many of India’s minority communities being treated as outsiders. Even eggs in school meals have become politicised. Here, calls to consume less animal products are part of a deeply vexed political context.
Likewise, in Africa, food wars are seen in sharp relief as industrial scale farming by transnationals for crops and vegetables takes fertile land away from mixed family farms (including cattle and dairy), and exacerbates social inequality.
The result is that today, private interest and political prejudices often hide behind the grandest talk of “ethical” diets and planetary sustainability even as the consequences may be nutritional deficiencies, biodiversity-destroying monocultures and the erosion of food sovereignty.
For all the warm talk, global food policy is really an alliance of industry and capital intent on both controlling and distorting food production. We should recall Marx’s warnings against allowing the interests of corporations and private profit to decide what we should eat.
Martin Cohen, Visiting Research Fellow in Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire and Frédéric Leroy, Professor of Food Science and Biotechnology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

More stuff is not the answer

Today's post is 100% opinion based. I will share some evidence to back up my opinions, but know that what it boils down to is that NOBODY needs more STUFF.

I was in a retail establishment the other day. It's a popular place for consumers to shop because their prices are "great".  We had stopped in because we thought we needed a new set of sheets, after discovering a tear in one of our fitted sheets.

But as I navigated the racks of clothing, home décor, and general knick-knacks, I felt a rising sense of discomfort. Was there really anything in this mish-mash that would improve my life? Did I really need a blue velvet stuffed pumpkin with a silver stem to show that I loved fall? I paused for a moment and thought, "There's a time I would have thought that unique and different." And I would have purchased it to show how unique my taste was (by purchasing a mass produced product that was available at multiple store locations around the country). Hmmmm. A bit of a disconnect, isn't there?

I saved myself $14.99 plus tax by pausing and realizing there was nothing inherently satisfying about owning a stuffed blue velvet pumpkin with a silver stem. In fact, not owning it was rapidly becoming more satisfying, bordering on smug.

As I recoiled at the massive displays of excess consumerism, noted the long lines of carts filled with stuff, and held my set of sheets, I thought, I can patch the sheet, and took my package back to the shelf for another consumer to ponder. I patched the sheet with an iron-on patch. The tear was near the foot of the bed, but I will flip the sheet and it will be underneath the pillow, never even inconveniencing our slumber.

There are news reports that donation centers cannot resell half the things that are donated, so they make bales of textiles and ship them "somewhere else". We've done the same thing with our plastic waste, shipped it to China until China stopped accepting it.

When was the last time you thought about the need for "retail therapy"? Does more stuff really make us more happy? Or does it just create the need to move things around and re-organize and re-categorize.

Over the years, I've written about the need to "repair" first, and to make the 3Rs 4. Reduce, step one. Reuse, step two. And Recycle, last.

Does stuff really "go away" or are we just stashing it somewhere else so we don't see it?

I challenge you to think about whether you need more "stuff". I bet you can "make-do".

infographic from: Council for Textile's Recycling Issue

How to get rid of Japanese beetles in your garden

The Japanese beetles are basically harmless to humans, they don’t bite, and they are not poisonous. These insects only take out their ravage on your crops and landscapes. This can lead to inedible fruits and vegetables, which is not suitable for a gardener like you. This insect is a native to Japan, just like the name implies. They were introduced to the United States through the shipping industries. These insects somewhat pesky little suckers.

photo courtesy of: pixabay

The Japanese beetles emerge at their adult stage with a metallic green body and copper wings, which enable them to fly from plant to plant. The female adult beetle lay up to 60 eggs in 45 days, and these beetles live much of their lives underground. The Japanese beetle feeds on vegetables, flowers and even trees. When you see just one beetle in your garden, make a move to get rid of it before it attracts others. Having a beetle problem in your garden? Call any pest control company around Hickory, NC. Also, you can get rid of them with these simple tips.

Neem oil: This oil is safe to use because it comes from trees and is non-toxic. This can be sprayed on roses flowers or any other plants you see the beetles enjoy eating. This method is less stressful, and it goes a long way because once the adult beetles ingest the neem oil, they will pass it to the eggs and hatched larvae will die before it enters into their adult stage. In conclusion, neem oil is harmful to fish, so stay clear from this method if you have a fish ponds.

Soap solution: This method can be harmless to the environment if you apply correctly. This can help suffocate the beetles, mix a teaspoon of dish soap with a quart of water. Apply it to any plants affected by the beetles putting the solution into a spray bottle. You can add some solutions like rubbing alcohol and oil, and this depends on the plant you have in your area. However, it is crucial to do proper research on how these chemicals and oil could harm some plants and animals around.

Handpick them: this may be unpleasant for some people, but it is the most effective way of getting rid of the Japanese beetles is to handpick them. Remember they don’t bite, so it is entirely safe. This method can be tedious, but it works. When you pull them off the plants, but sure to put them into soapy water or boiled water both work perfectly well.

Row cover: You can protect your plant by from the beetles with row covers. If you don’t see beetle damage until the summer, when the beetles start to enter the adult stage and start feeding above ground, this method should help you. Use the row covers just when the beetles start feeding above the ground, which begin in mid-June and last about 6 to 8 weeks.

Our Daily Green thanks today's post sponsor for these great tips! 

Bad bugs dead, good bugs stay. A guide.

If you are new to gardening, the sight of bugs crawling among your plants can be alarming.

Well, some garden bugs can do great damage to your yard, and there is nothing as bad as losing your hard work to these bugs. But before you pull out your spray kit, take your time to consider the effect of pesticides on your garden’s ecosystem.

Not every bug is bad for your garden. In fact, the larger percentage of insects in your yard are harmless. Most of these insects will go about their business without harming your plants. Some, eat the bugs that devour on your plants.

Why shouldn’t you spray your garden with pesticides?

https://pixabay.com/photos/ladybugs-ladybirds-bugs-insects-1593406/

Spraying synthetic pesticides and insecticides creates more problems for your garden than it solves. These chemicals are not only unhealthy for human beings, but they also kill the good bugs and other unintended targets such as birds. Considering most bugs in your yard the good ones, we need to figure out how to kill the bad bugs ones and leave out the good ones. Here are some useful tips that can help you do so;

Tips for controlling pests without killing good bugs

1.    Blasting them off

Some bugs need nothing more than a blast of water to get rid off. Unwanted Pests can easily be dislodged with a blast of cold water without killing the good bugs. To get the job done, you can spray cold water directly at the unwanted bugs.

This method works well on some small-bodied insects such as aphids, whiteflies and other tiny insects damaging your plants.

2.    Soap bad bugs to death

Bugs which put up a good fight even after trying to dislodge them with water can be killed with insecticidal soaps. These soaps work well in removing the waxy coating in soft-bodied insects, causing them to get dehydrated, which eventually lead to death. Unlike most insecticides, these soaps do not harm honeybees or leave a toxic residue on your plants.

3.    Targeted organic pesticides

Some garden pests are quite resistant, and the above ways might not be effective to kill them. A targeted organic pesticide can get rid of such bugs by killing only one type of bug in the yard.

For example, when you spray a targeted organic pesticide on potatoes being munched on by Colorado beetles, the only insects that will die here are the beetles.

If a bird or a toad happens to eat these beetles sprayed with the organic pesticides, they will only get a good meal and won’t be affected by the pesticide. This can be an effective method to get rid of some annoying pests like cutworms, snails and Colorado potato beetles.

4.    Get rid of pests with beneficial bugs

Lady beetles, praying mantis and spiders are examples of beneficial insects that prey on pests in your garden. Lure these insects into your garden by having an attractive and diverse habitat of different herbs, plants, and flowers. This will help you have a team of natural enemies against the pests which will help you get the job done.

Reducing pesticides can also help you will create a conducive environment for the beneficial insects to thrive in.

Recap

Being familiar with the bugs visiting your garden is the first step when combating pests. Pesticides and insecticides can harm beneficial insects, plants, as well as human beings when used regularly. Therefore, it is best to avoid using these chemicals by using some of the few steps demonstrated above to get rid of pests in your garden. Today's post has been graciously brought to us by a sponsor who agrees with Our Daily Green that there are safe ways to get rid of unwanted bugs, but also to preserve the beneficial insects.