But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

Kent claimed that the Kyoto protocol “will not work” when China and USA is not participating and that the global climate change agreement doesn’t “represent a way forward for Canada”.

“As we said from the outset, the Kyoto Protocol did not represent the path forward for Canada”, Kent said in a statement to the House of Commons.

“Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work.”

The Kyoto protocol, Kent said, would force Canada to implement “radical and irresponsible action” that would result in “the loss of thousands of jobs.” Kent also expressed criticism against Canada’s obligation under the protocol to transfer about $14 billion to poorer countries to help them to mitigate and respond to the effects of climate change.

And so the conservative government in Canada ignores both the economical differences between the North and the South as well as the historical responsibility Canada has when it comes to climate change.

“The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto,” said Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema.

But why is Canada really withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol? The Canadian government blames it on USA for not being part of the global climate treaty, saying it stops Canada from competing economically on the world market. But others say that the real reason is Canada’s climate killing tar sands.

“One of the reasons that Canada is not meeting its goals is because it has opted not to hobble oil-sands production — in fact, the government has encouraged it. And although many sectors of its economy have drawn down emissions, the tar-sands industry has more than made up for those drops. So Canada was faced with a choice: money from tar sands or climate change. It’s choosing climate change.”

Back in Europe, another conservative government led by PM David Cameron has secretly been helping Canada to push its dirty and deadly tar sands project on EU markets. Conservative governments and politicians around the world are busy trying to delay the implementation of climate policies and now even abandoning the world’s only global climate treaty. At the same time socialistic governments are trying to device the “radical” changes needed to confront the climate crisis. Such as the red and green coalition in Denmark which has set plans in motion to completely end their reliance on fossil fuels.

So what does Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol mean? Considering the fact that Canada has increased their greenhouse gas emissions with nearly 20% since 1990 they never really were a part of the Kyoto protocol anyway. So for the climate crisis it doesn’t do much difference. But future UN negotiations will certainly become even more polarized and the mistrust created will surely delay, or in worse case even sabotage, efforts to secure a global climate deal for 2020 and beyond. But one thing that is painfully clear now is that a legally binding climate deal does not guarantee countries won’t ignore or walk away from their commitments.

They have chosen to label the Tar sands as “ethical oil” on the basis that it is not “conflict oil” as well Canadians, aren’t they all friendly and green and everything? Well actually no! Much of the fossil fuels consumed in America (oil, gas and coal) comes from North of the border, as Canada compete with Venezuela for the title of America’s leading source of energy imports (and thus the primary source of America’s carbon addiction). In addition much of the Uranium that powers America (and Canada’s) nuclear reactors comes from Canadian mines. Northern Canada is also home to many large open cast mines for various minerals. I would also note that energy consumption of the average Canadian is actually higher than that of the average American  (7.4 toe for Canada against 7 for the US). Finally I would note that like any country Canada is made up of different provinces with very different regimes in each state. Alberta province, where the Tar sands are based, happens to be the most right wing state in the Union with the worst environmental record. Indeed they are often described as the “Canadian Texas”.

Should anyone reading this be unfamiliar with the whole tar sands controversy, tar sands are basically a mixture of moisture, soil, sand, clay and heavy oil. They are usually the consequence of oil escaping at some point in the past from its underground source rock and migrated up to the surface. Here it became mixed with the soil and also came under attack from the biosphere. Given a few more hundreds of thousands of years it would all get broken down into an unusable form (this is the same mechanism that has over the last 250 million years destroyed much of the oil that ever formed on this world, only a tiny fraction survived to the present day). Extracting oil from Tar sands, the world largest and most accessible deposits are in the Athabasca region of Northern Canada, is more of an open cast mining operation. This would involve tearing down large quantities of pristine old growth boreal forests, possibly an area the size of the England and Wales may ultimately be destroyed.

The major problem with the Tar sands is thus, the enormous environmental pollution caused by this mining and processing, see here for a summary of the problems it creates and see pictures of the destruction here. Or actually just go to Google Earth and pop in “Fort McMurray”. I don’t need to be any more specific than that, as they are literally creating a mess big enough to see from space! Also this processing consumes large quantities of energy, meaning you’re energy payback from oil sands (EROEI) isn’t nearly as good than you get with conventional oil (indeed it may prove to be an order of magnitude less). This also means you need a substantial source of energy to power you’re oil sands extraction process, and the carbon emissions resulting from this process are increased (some figures say Tars sands produces 20%  to four times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional oil, depending on who you ask). It also requires substantial quantities of water, both to aid in oil processing, but also to “flush” away the many chemicals contained within the associated tailings (which can include a toxic mix of known or suspected carcinogens, heavy metals, POP’s, arsenic, etc.)….this “flush” often seeing large amounts of sediment laden with toxins finding its way into mountain rivers and streams. In short if you think the conventional oil production is bad, Tar sands are much worse. An order of magnitude increase in Tar sands production will produce a significant spike in pollution (again in the middle of an boreal wilderness) and carbon dioxide levels (Guardian article on the Canadian governments to hide these facts here). It is no wonder that environmentalist recoil in horror.

So I think we can safely say that from an environmental prospective this “ethical oil” claim is completely unjustified, unless you consider destroying one of the world’s last great wildernesses while clubbing baby seals to death (another Canadian “pastime”) as “ethical”! But what about this claim that Canadian Tar Sands isn’t “conflict” oil? They put a picture of Hugo Chavez on one poster under the term “conflict oil” then imply that Canadian oil is conflict free. Let’s pick that one apart. Who exactly is Venezuela at war with? While they are having a few border disputes with Colombia, as far as I’m aware the country is not engaged in any formal conflict, nor significant informal conflict with any of his neighbours. Ironically of course Canada has troops serving in Afghanistan, whose presence there is ultimately funded in part by revenue raised by the Tar sands. So actually if you want to buy “non-conflict oil” my advice would be to give Hugo a call and the Canadians a miss.

The also accuse Hugo Chavez, in the poster, of promoting “forced labour”. While I’m not necessarily a fan of old Hugo, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of his regime, which has sought to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor. By contrast a bunch of labour union supporters showed up at the Occupy Calgary camp  recently to highlight the problems they face with Alberta’s lax protections of employee rights. I also recall meeting during my travels a year or so ago in Canada, a local farmer who was ultimately in danger of loosing his land to the tar sands through a compulsory purchase order they we’re likely to hit him with. Pushing farmers and locals off their land so multinationals can exploit oil reserves (under the farmer’s feet mind!) doesn’t quite fit in with the “ethical oil” image I think. In short you could easily reverse many of these posters and accuse Canada of being the warmongering nation with a dreadful environmental record who tramples on human rights and pushes people off their land.

Indeed reading through this “ethical oil” propaganda there seems to me to be a dangerous and bigoted undercurrent. They tar (oh! the irony!) all the OPEC countries with the same Saudi brush (awful of course tho the Saudi’s human rights record is), ignoring the diverse nature of the many Middle East nations (and their attiudes to Islam or womens rights). And of course not all OPEC states are in the Middle East nor are they Muslim! And the world’s largest oil producer? Russia!

So what these “Ethical oil” lot seem to be saying is that oil pumped by white anglo-saxons is ethically and morally superior to that pumped by those nasty evil foreigners with their dark skin, strange religions and funny languages. I’ve not come across such fascist crap and misinformed bigotry since I last saw a Mel Gibson film. And again ironically, if this is the intended point our “ethical oil” spinster’s are making, then even this is factually inaccurate. The bulk of the finance behind the Tar sands is coming not from Canada, but from abroad (economist article mentions that here). Chinese, Russian, Indian and American firms are indeed all major investors in the tar sands (see wiki page here for info and links on this). Indeed I would argue that the problem for the Canadians here is they are loosing control of the situation. Ultimately decisions on the Tar sands (how much will be produced and how bad the environmental mess which the Canadians will have to clean up afterwards) will be made in foreign countries by foreign multinationals.

In fact can I play this game too? I could for example come up with a poster labelling Canada brutal treatment of native Americans in past centuries, or indeed the present day (one tribe down river from the Tar sands (Fort Mckay) have had their water source polluted by Tar sands runoff with a growing cancer cell springing up) with Saudi Arabia who are so multicultural they actually prefer to hire workers from India or Pakistan  Or how about their positive attitude towards women, while Canadian women are forced to drive their own cars, the Saudi’s provide their women with chauffeurs and male chaperons instead Yes buy Saudi oil, the “ethical” oil!

Jokes aside, the fact is there is no such thing as “ethical oil”. The stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in Canada is as dirty as the stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in the Middle East, possibly dirtier in fact.

But we need those jobs here in Canada, the Tar sands supporters will say, if the tar sands aren’t promoted all those jobs will go abroad along with North America’s energy security. And how many jobs could be created if Canada exploited instead its vast renewable energy potential? North America has some of the best and most varied renewable resources on the planet, if only our American cousins would only get over their whole “real men don’t use solar panels” attitude. And if the point of tar sands oil is to improve north American energy security then why are they building pipelines to Texas and West Coast ports from the tar sands? That sort of implies that the bulk of the oil will ulitmately be exported, or at the very least if America wants the oil it will have to pay the market price (which could be high in the future).

But we need the Tar sands to rescue the world from peak oil, is the other argument. Again, as will all tar sands propaganda this one too falls flat. I’ve seen estimates for the maximum tar sands ranging from 1 million bbl/day to 8 million bbl/day with 5m bbl/day often been quoted as a “best guess”. However this is but 6% of the current global demand of around 80million bbl/day and even that 8m bbl/day figure (wildly optimistic thought it is) is but 8% of the projected 2030 demand figure for oil of 100million bbl/day. Were does the other 94-96% of the world’s oil come from?

Furthermore, again we have to consider the issue of EROEI. I’ve seen EROEI estimates for the tar sands ranging from 9 to 0.7 (with a ratio in the range of 3-7 being probably a more credible range of values), substantially worse than any existing oil fields (EROEI ranging from 10 – 100). Remember that because an IC engine is typically just 20-30% efficient (and the primary consumption path of oil is ultimately transport fuels) we need to achieve an EROEI of at least 5-3.3 just to break even energy wise (else our tar sands count as a net energy sink rather than a source).

Inevitably the above means we’ll need to divert huge quantities of natural gas to power the whole operation. Indeed its questionably if there is sufficient quantities of gas (or coal) to spare within the whole of North America – a fear that seems justified given recent talk about bringing in nuclear reactors to meet demand. When I first heard about this plan to use nukes to extract tar sands I assumed it was a hoax perpetrated by Republicans trying to yank Greenpeace’s chain, but unfortunately no its for real. Of course even a number of pro-nuclear campaigners aren’t entirely happy about this one, describing it to me as “perverse” and “an abuse of nuclear technology”. After all, it involves (as they see it) taking high grade zero-carbon nuclear energy and using it to produce a load of low grade carbon intensive energy! Would you not be better just building reactors closer to cities and generating electricity and heat they argue? When the nuclear lobby calls you environmental terrorists you know you’re goose is cooked! And of course I would point out, ridiculous as this idea is, it can only be sustained as long as we can keep feeding Uranium into the nuclear reactors. And who is going to pay the decommissioning costs of those reactors and what happens if one of them pops its cork in the middle of the Canadian Boreal forests?

While nuclear power would reduce the net carbon output from the Tar sands we are still looking at a situation where the tar sands will still produce much more greenhouse gases, both from disturbance to the eco system as well as from the oil itself and the refining and processing of it, compared to existing oilfields. A global policy of climate change mitigation and tar sands (or shale gas) extraction are simply not compatible.

The Tar sands are thus in summary not ethical, not eco friendly, not a solution to peak oil and arguably not even Canadian anymore! The only people who will ultimately gain from tar sands extraction are the shareholders of a small number of foreign multinational oil companies…or certainty greedy PR types happy to sell their souls and they’re nation’s credibility for a few (tar splattered) bucks.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system that will transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States and then expand to the U.S Gulf Coast. The U.S Department of State has extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. The Obama administration has the final say in approving the pipeline. A final environmental review of the prospective project is expected from the State Department in August.

The Partnership to Fuel America campaign is the first time the U.S Chamber has overtly aligned with the Canadian company’s project. According to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, it will be “comprised of American businesses and industries that understand the need for more energy in the United States and believe that Canada’s significant resources can help achieve that goal.” When visiting The Partnership to Fuel America’s website, the only source of energy listed at Canada’s tar sands, and most listed are directly related to the Keystone XL project.

This particular pipeline is controversial because it is a tar sands pipeline, it’s different than those that carry conventional crude oil. These lines are much more prone to leaks and spills, and spills are bad for the environment. Because this is a tar sands pipeline, the oil that is extracted is different. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

This type of oil is more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. It is up to sevety times more viscous than conventional crude oil. It also contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentration, and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crude oil. The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening of pipelines. Imagine having to transport a glass of water in a paper cup by driving out of your garage door to the other side of the country without even a spill. The chemical composition also makes it much more difficult for monitors to detect a crack in the pipeline.

The Keystone I pipeline has infamously spilled twelve times in under a year of operation. The company had initially claimed that the pipeline would leak only once every seven years. Finally, after the tar sands oil does spill, cleanup is harder than normal crude spills. A year after a spill in Western Michigan, one reporter stated that surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists were still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. They now believe a full clean up could take years.

“But I think we need to up the ante for those pursuing business as usual, the relentless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure that is causing these problems and guaranteeing that they will be worse in the future. Actions that lead to mass deaths and displacements, either directly due to a weather event or indirectly from impacts on land and livelihoods, beg for some accountability. I’m no international law-talking guy, but I believe that these things can only be called crimes against humanity.

Let’s say that again. Efforts to expand the oil and gas industry, like the Keystone XL and Enbridge pipelines, are crimes against humanity. Expanding the coal industry, like the proposal to export megatonnes of Washington state coal, is not just bad environmental policy, but a crime against humanity.”

“[...] I may be willing to give a grace period for actions take before 2000 or so, on the grounds that we did not know better (though we actually did). Nor would I punish regular folks (including me) who burn fossil fuels because of the structure of the world we live in and the lack of alternatives. This is about the dealers not the addicts; about the need for urgent change in response to the unfolding crisis.
It matters not whether such actions today are “legal” (almost all genocides were legal at the time) but they are deeply immoral and wrong. Major shareholders and senior executives in big fossil fuel industries – and the politicians that dote on them – need to understand that their profiteering off of destabilizing the climate will pay a price. That’s a little thing we call justice.”

You can read his whole article here. Related posts: UN official says biofuels are a “crime against humanity” and Dr James Hansen says we should prosecute climate change liars.

The study looks at how much CO2 and methane emissions the citizens and the industries inside the city borders generate every year. Hoornweg and the other co-authors base their study on 100 different cities from 33 different countries around the world. The study, titled "Cities and greenhouse gas emissions: moving forward", shows that the emissions varies greatly between poor and rich cities around the world. The per capita greenhouse gas emissions vary with more than 15 tonnes in wealthy industrialized cities such as Sydney, Calgary, Stuttgart and several major US cities to less than half a tonne in poorer cities such as Nepal, India and Bangladesh.

According to the study the top 9 "dirtiest" cities in the world are: (1) Rotterdam in the Netherlands with 29,8 tonnes per capita, (2) Austin in USA with 24 tonnes, (3) Denver in USA with 21,5 tonnes, (4) Washington DC in USA with 20 tonnes, (5) Minneapolis in USA with 18 tonnes, (6) Calgary in Canada with 18 tonnes, (7) Menlo Park in USA with 16 tonnes, (8) Dallas in USA with 15 tonnes and (9) Stuttgart in Germany with 12 tonnes per capita.

This study helps strengthen activists calls for "climate justice" to help stop the huge inequality between rich and poor nations that fuels a climate of mistrust and sabotages efforts to secure a climate deal.

During the end of September the “Arctic nations” – Canada, Russia, Norway, the United States and Denmark – met in Moscow to agree on territorial claims. (Strangely, I didn’t notice any coverage at all in Danish media – while even Al-Jazeera warmed up for it.)

“Serious political and economic interests are indeed crossing over in the Arctic. But I have no doubt that problems, including the continental shelf problem, can be solved in the spirit of partnership. It is well known that it is difficult to survive in the Arctic on your own. Nature itself makes people, nations and states help each other there. Unfortunately we are faced with alarmist predictions of a looming battle for the Arctic. We are monitoring the situation and making responsible forecasts.”
- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin

“No one problem of contemporary Arctic can be resolved by one country alone. So that’s why I think that we are doomed to co-operate in the Arctic. And military confrontation especially is completely counterproductive.” – Russian Arctic expert Lev Voronkov

Russia plans to invest 312.8 billion US dollars on exploration and promise extra tax breaks for oil corporations wanting to do business in the Arctic. They have sent a submarine to plant the Russian flag on the sea bed but complain about NATO’s presence.

The Arctic is thought to contain 25% of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas, about 200 billion barrels of oil.

“The industry has been around the world discovering easy oil and gas there are only the more difficult and riskier regions left – and the Arctic is one of them”
- Manouchehr Takin, Centre For Global Energy Studies

“It is a reckless prospecting endeavour, trying to find new oil reserves in this fragile and pristine environment” – Greenpeace protestor

I am reminded of George Monbiot’s speech at Klimaforum09 (alternative COP15):

“If governments were serious about climate change [...] they would be putting proposals here at Copenhagen this week to determine which parts of carbon reserves would be left in the ground. [...] they would also be proposing a total global moratorium on all prospecting for new reserves of coal, oil and gas.”

We have already found more than enough fossil fuel reserves to cause extreme climate change. We don’t need the Arctic reserves to do that. A fact so blindingly obvious since they are only becoming accessible because of the melting ice caps.

Sources include: Reuters / Russia’s Putin urges Arctic resources deal, BBC / Arctic summit in Moscow hears rival claims and BBC / Melting ice opens up potential for Arctic exploitation.

What are genetically modified foods?

Biotechnology covers a broad range of technological “advancements” in food. These include the production of herbicides and pesticides, the use of antibiotics in dairy and meat, and of course, genetically modified foods (Otero, 2008). Genetically modified food refers to food that has had its genetic structure altered in some way, such as by mixing genes of different organisms. Generally, this has been done to make a crop more efficient to produce, export and sell (Bakshi, 2003). Examples include making crops resistant to certain herbicides or pesticides, making food tougher and firmer to last during international shipping, and making crops that grow faster (Bakshi, 2003).

What’s wrong with GMOs?

Genetically modified food is shown to be very harmful. Increased serious food allergies (such as for soybeans and corn), heavy metal contamination, and antibiotic resistance are several examples of adverse health effects. Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s famous study determined that GM foods were toxic to mammals (see my article on the Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods). Mice that were fed a diet of GM foods became very ill (Bakshi, 2003). Interestingly, Pusztai’s research lost its funding from the British government (Bakshi, 2003). As well, GM foods are speculated to have less nutritional value than conventional, natural crops of the same kind (Bakshi, 2003). Lastly, most research that determined GM foods to be safe has been focused on one particular chemical at a time. That is, the combination of different chemicals (as they would appear in food) has mostly gone unexamined (Bakshi, 2003).

These are the health effects of biotechnology, although they have many more problems, including the loss of biodiversity, and patents on plants and animals. As Greenpeace states, “Life is not a commodity” (http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/). Additionally, the infamous terminator seeds are plants that are bioengineered to produce sterile seeds. This means that farmers cannot use the seeds to plant future crops in the upcoming years; new seeds must be purchased every year, leaving farmers dependent on biotechnology giants like Monsanto. Today, biotechnology corporations are some of the most powerful corporations in the world.

How to avoid GM foods:

The problem (as most of us know already) is that in North America, GMO foods are not labeled as genetically modified, as they are in Europe and other parts of the world. How, then, do we say “no” to GMO?

Look for Non-GMO Product Certifications

Since North American governments have failed to assure consumers about the safety of their food by labeling genetically modified products, individuals and organizations have taken it upon themselves to do this.

The North American non-profit organization Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/) has made a commitment to identify and locate products and companies that do not use any genetically modified ingredients. These include Nature’s Path Foods, Barbara’s Bakery, Choice Teas and Tofurky (meat alternatives). However, as mentioned, not all non-organic food is genetically modified. Non-organic companies that are still non-genetically modified include Kettle Chips, Silk (soy beverages), and Bragg’s soy sauce.

The organization is relatively new, so the Non-GMO Project assures us that the certification will be available sometime this Fall. Better yet, the Project has named October as GMO-free month! In the meantime, check out their website and sign the consumer pledge (http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/consumer-pledge/) showing that you support their work and will purchase non-GMO products.

Look for Certified Organic

Generally, a good indicator of a GMO-free product is an organic certification. All products that are certified organic (meaning that it obeys the guidelines of a third party certifying body) must be non-genetically modified. Even this, however, can be difficult with multi-ingredient products. Tracking the sourcing of every ingredient can be tricky.

Look for common GM ingredients

When you’re in doubt, the most common genetically modified ingredients include corn, soy and canola. However, the situation becomes more difficult when these ingredients are hidden in other ingredients. Genetically modified corn, for instance, can be found in corn starch, high fructose corn syrup, and even maltodextrin. Because of these complexities, “it is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. or Canadian grocery store” (source: http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/about-gmos/).

Take action

Greenpeace’s website contains some excellent resources for consumers to take action against genetically modified food. Locate it here: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/Get-involved/ and send letters to political representatives explaining your concerns and urging them to take action.

Contact the Company

A possible way to find out if your favourite food contains genetically modified ingredients is by contacting the company directly. The only problem with this is that the one who answers the emails may not be the one who sees the food production firsthand.

From my own experience, I have received several responses that explain that it is difficult to track the production of the product, and therefore they don’t know for sure if biotechnology has been used. Is this an excuse to cover up known genetically modified ingredients? Is it a real example of how, when a company gets so large and decentralized, they no longer have full knowledge of the production process? Either way, it’s not ideal for the consumer.   

Your best bet? Buy certified organic, buy products labeled as non-genetically modified, support genetically-modified labeling initiatives by donating, and contact your political representatives to send them a message.

Photo credit: andriux-uk

Top climate scientists in the top scientific journal Nature recently stated that we have exceeded crucial planetary boundaries beyond which we are at high risk of unacceptable environmental change. These and other top climate scientists and biologists are stating clearly that the atmospheric CO2 concentration must be urgently returned to 300-350 ppm for planetary safety. Unfortunately, World governments are ignoring the science and are committed to increasing CO2, evidently not understanding that there can be no negotiation with the laws of Physics and Chemistry.

An Australian husband and wife with homeopathic beliefs were recently jailed for the manslaughter of their horribly neglected child. Accountability must also apply to all people who are ignoring scientific advice and international law and are complicit in the carnage of US wars (9-11 million excess deaths in US wars, 1990-2009, including 4 million infants) and in the worsening climate genocide (that will kill 10 billion people, including 6 billion infants). This inescapable legal, business, political and electoral Accountability for war crimes and climate crimes is detailed in a Letter being transmitted to all Federal MPs in climate criminal Australia (a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution) and indeed to everyone so that, unlike many Germans in 1945, they cannot say “we didn’t know”.

Recently some of the World’s top climate scientists in a peer-refereed paper in the top scientific journal Nature stated that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (CO2) should be reduced from the present circa 390 parts per million (ppm) “and should not exceed 350 parts per million” in order to prevent “unacceptable environmental change”. [1].

Similarly, a Working Party of the prestigious UK Royal Society recently stated that “The Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level must be returned to less than 350ppm to reverse this escalating ecological crisis and to 320ppm to ensure permanent planetary health”, a view consonant with that of other top climate scientists who warn that the atmospheric CO2 must be urgently reduced to circa 300 ppm to save the Arctic ice, the Biosphere and Humanity . [2, 3].

Unfortunately World governments, backed by popular and corporate greed, are approaching the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit negotiations committed to INCREASING atmospheric CO2, in stark contravention of the advice from the World’s top climate scientists. The best First World offer is from EU countries committed to no more than a 2 degree C temperature rise (relative to 1990), a ceiling of 450 ppm CO2-e greenhouse gas (GHG as CO2 equivalent) and a decrease in GHG pollution of 2% per year. [4].

However there can be no negotiation with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry. Thus over 90% of scientists polled at the March 2009 University of Copenhagen Climate Change Conference believed that 2 degrees C above 1990 was inevitable; the GHG concentration is already 475 ppm CO2-e (of which about 390 ppm is CO2); and top climate scientists from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, have recently estimated that an annual 6-8% decrease in GHG pollution is required to stabilize atmospheric CO2-e at the present level. [4-6].

Both the Biosphere and Humanity are already under acute threat. Australian medical science Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty has said “We are in real danger”. The present species extinction rate is 100-1,000 times the normal rate. 16 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation, this carnage including about 9.5 million under-5 year old infants and increasingly being impacted by man-made climate change. [7, 8]

Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has estimated that 1 billion people or fewer will survive this century due to insufficiently addressed, man-made climate change. This translates (from UN Population Division projections) to a First World-imposed climate genocide that is predicted to kill 10 billion non-Europeans this century, this carnage including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims (a Muslim Holocaust 500 times greater than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust or the “forgotten” WW2 Bengali Holocaust), 2 billion Indians, 1.4 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.6 billion Arabs, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. [9].

Recently an Australian mother and her husband with homeopathic beliefs were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for the manslaughter of their child through failure to seek expert medical help in a timely fashion for a treatable condition. [10].

If lengthy imprisonment is the fit punishment for the manslaughter of ONE innocent child by no doubt loving but misguided parents, what then for the deliberate, knowing, and hence intentional mass murder of MILLIONS through war crimes and BILLIONS through climate crimes, the mass murder of the 4 million under-5 year old infants (so far) through war criminal US Alliance-imposed war and deprivation (passive genocide) in the still-occupied Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories and the mass murder of the 6 billion under-5 year old infants who will perish in the 21st century, First world-imposed climate genocide of 10 billion non-Europeans?

Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War unequivocally state that an Occupier must provide life-sustaining food and medical services to its conquered Subjects “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”. [11].

However UN Population Division and UNICEF data inform us that post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.3 million, respectively, and the annual under-5 infants deaths (90% avoidable) are 4,000, 41,000 and 338,000, respectively. Under-5 year infant deaths in Iraq under Sanctions (1990-2003) totalled 1.2 million. [12, 13].

A fundamental cause of this horrendous mass infant mortality is revealed by the World Health Organization (WHO) – what the Catholic Church has described as the Gaza Concentration Camp has been under blockade by war criminal Occupier Israel for 3 years and the annual total per capita medical expenditure permitted by the war criminal Occupiers in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan totals $29 and $124, respectively, as compared to $6,714 and $3,122 in Occupier US and Occupier Australia, respectively. [14].

The UN Genocide Convention insists on prosecution of all people – whether governments or individuals – complicit in the crime of genocide, which it defines in Article 2 thus: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” [15].

Such prosecution under the UN Genocide Convention for deliberate, intentional, knowing Climate Genocide (or for deliberate, knowing, intentional war crimes in the ongoing Palestinian, Genocide, Iraq Genocide and Afghan Genocide) applies to anyone complicit in genocide “whether they be constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals” i.e. to elected governments, public servants and to the individual voters who elect them or fund them. [15].

Those who knowingly ignore, deny or obfuscate the horrendous harm from war and man-made climate change become accessories after the fact of war crimes and climate genocide, respectively.

While the US does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC), US Federal Law makes it a capital offence to commit war crimes causing death in violating International Conventions such as the Geneva Convention and the UN Genocide Convention to which the US is a signatory. [16].

By way of example to illustrate the dimension of the ongoing US Alliance atrocities, the current “annual death rate” is 7% for Occupied Afghan under-5 year old infants under the US Alliance – as compared to that of 4% (for Poles under the Nazis in WW2), 5% (French Jews under the Nazis and the Nazi-collaborator Vichy régime in WW2), 13% (Australian POWs of the Japanese in WW2) and 19% (Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe). [17].

The members of the US Alliance involved in the ongoing Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide and the supporters of the US-backed occupation, colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine (the Palestinian Genocide) are known to all – these are variously the US, the UK, the EU, Canada, Israel, NATO and Australia. [8].

But who are the worst offenders in the worsening climate genocide – something that the World’s island nations diplomatically but incorrectly euphemize as “benign genocide”? [18].

“Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” is presently 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), 3.1 (Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (Developed World), 23 (Canada), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included). [9, 19, 20].

Australia is evidently a world leader in annual per capita GHG pollution – its present value is 54 tonnes CO2-e per person per year (with its huge coal and LNG exports included), 60 times that of Bangladesh, an impoverished country acutely threatened by man-made global warming.

But who are the worst offenders in the worsening climate genocide – something that the World’s island nations diplomatically but incorrectly euphemize as “benign genocide”? [18].

“Annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” is presently 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), 3.1 (Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (Developed World), 23 (Canada), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included). [9, 19, 20].

Australia is evidently a world leader in annual per capita GHG pollution – its present value is 54 tonnes CO2-e per person per year (with its huge coal and LNG exports included), 60 times that of Bangladesh, an impoverished country acutely threatened by man-made global warming.

What can decent people do about the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and the worsening Climate Genocide?

Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. Decent folk must (1) inform everyone they can about these atrocities (we cannot walk by on the other side) and (2) make those responsible Accountable for war crimes and climate crimes.

Accountability at a global as well as an intra-national level can be secured via Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, Reparations Demands and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions applied to People, Public Servants, Politicians, Collectives, Corporations and Countries complicit in war crimes and climate crimes.

However within democracies every voter becomes complicit in the crimes of elected representatives. Thus in climate criminal, war criminal Australia those voting for the pro-war, pro-coal, war criminal and climate criminal Liberal Party-National Party Coalition Opposition or the pro-war, pro-coal, war criminal and climate criminal Labor Party Government (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) become complicit in war crimes and climate crimes. The Australian Lib-Labs currently have about 90% support from an electorate remorselessly propagandized by the Murdoch Empire-dominated media with the pro-environment, pro-peace, anti-coal and anti-war Australian Greens only having about 10% electoral support.

Indeed older people (older voters) have 3 selfish reasons for taking action over man-made global warming. Older people are peculiarly threatened by the worsening climate emergency in three key areas that can be summarized by the “three Ds” of Devaluation (their pensions, superannuation, investments and family support will necessarily devalue in a non-sustainable carbon economy but GDP growth is assured in a renewable and non-carbon economy); Death (older people are frailer and more susceptible to heat stress through a weakened brain signalling system); and Descendants (their descendants will hate them for what they have done to the planet). [21].

However within democracies every voter becomes complicit in the crimes of elected representatives. Thus in climate criminal, war criminal Australia those voting for the pro-war, pro-coal, war criminal and climate criminal Liberal Party-National Party Coalition Opposition or the pro-war, pro-coal, war criminal and climate criminal Labor Party Government (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) become complicit in war crimes and climate crimes. The Australian Lib-Labs currently have about 90% support from an electorate remorselessly propagandized by the Murdoch Empire-dominated media with the pro-environment, pro-peace, anti-coal and anti-war Australian Greens only having about 10% electoral support.

Decent people must stand up to be counted for the sake of their children, their grandchildren, Humanity and the Biosphere. A powerful message for individual and collective action and empowerment is summarized as the ABC of action over war crimes and climate crimes: A, (hold those responsible for war crimes and climate crimes Accountable); B, wear a Badge (e.g. saying “PEACE” or “300 ppm”); and C, have a readily distributable Credo saying, for example: “Stop war, invasion, occupation, war crimes and genocide – stop killing children” and “For a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species we must urgently reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 300 ppm”. [3, 22, 23, 24].

The rich countries in the “North”, i.e. the West, have a “rapidly decreasing” population which is “expected to decline over the next forty years.” Developing countries such as India, China and most of Africa on the other hand is where we will see future population numbers increasing.

And yes. It seems so easy to blame countries with an overwhelming rising population for being responsible for wrecking our planet, climate and environment. Because surely more people must mean more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Right?

Not really. The West is responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 increase. An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year. And just a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.

As Fred Pearce from the Yale Environment 360 blog notes, only a small portion of the world’s people are using most of the planets resources as well as producing the most of the greenhouse gases. And those are living in the West:

“The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

[…]By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.”

According to Pearce overpopulation in the developing countries is not the problem. Instead the increasing overconsumption among the planets 7% richest people and countries is to be blamed. And he is not alone in claiming this. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, also agrees with this viewpoint. As Monbiot notes in a recent published article on the Guardian:

“As one the graphs King displayed demonstrated, and as the UN and independent scientists predict, the world’s population is expected to peak at around 9 billion by 2060 and then to decline to around 8.5 billion by 2100.

Of course the bisophere can ill-afford to carry these numbers, and they will load an extra 40 or 50% of pressure onto every environmental constraint. It’s an issue, in other words. But the issue?

Until the recession struck, the global rate of economic growth was 3.8%. The world’s governments hope and pray that we’ll be back on this track as soon as possible. Population, of course, is one of the components of economic growth, but the global population growth rate is currently 1.2%.

It’s responsible, in other words, for one-third of normal economic growth. The rest is supplied by rising consumption. Consumption, on this measure, bears twice as much responsibility for pressure on resources and ecosystems as population growth.”

Let’s take a look at the ecological footprint between developing countries and developed countries in the West. An ecological footprint is the estimate on how much land is required to provide you and me with food and other resources as well as cleaning up our pollution. The global average ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares per person.

Sweden, my own country, has an ecological footprint of 5.1 hectares. The UK is on 5.3. Australia has 7.8 and Canada has an average of 7.1 hectares. The United Arab Emirates and the United States of America are on the top spot with an ecological footprint of 9.5 and 9.4. Developing countries such as China only has an ecological footprint of 2.1 hectares while India is on 0.9. And most countries in Africa are around or below 1.0 hectares.

Pearce gives even more examples of unfair consumption between the rich and poor countries:

“Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.”

“Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.”

“A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.”

Just like Monbiot and Pearce claims overpopulation is not the problem. Even if we were to get a zero population growth around the world it wouldn’t help us against the climate crisis. Instead the overconsumption among the rich few in the world is the main problem which we must deal with.

Climate Progress writes: “To avoid catastrophic global warming impacts, the rich countries need to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 90% by mid-century. The developing countries (not including China) mostly must slow emissions growth, peak by mid-century, then decline — while ending the vast majority of deforestation by 2020. China must peak its emissions by 2020 and then reduce after that, first slowly, then quickly by mid-century.”

Overpopulation is only seen as a major problem because it’s the only thing we in the West can blame the developing countries for.