Welcome back to my blog, America. It's been a while since my last post but can you believe the latest news? Officials everywhere are questioning who is in charge of these barges that are cleaning up the current oil spill. Who gives a flying duck!
We should be thankful that one barge alone can suck up 96000 gallons of oil a day. That's ninety-six thousand gallons! Well, there is a fleet of them in the gulf that were ordered by the Coast Guard to be shut down because.... BECAUSE....
THERE WERE NO FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND LIFE VESTS ON THESE VESSELS!
Money hungry, good for nothing, organizations like OSHA, and not to mension the VIPs and HICs of the Obama Administration had the Coast Guard shut down these boats. Why? Because the ships' captains weren't up on their safety codes?
OSHA is one of the major reasons why I've lost faith in organized, business owned construction work.
I've never heard of OSHA actually trying to do something worth while. They'll come after your business and your hard earned money simply because you're standing on a ladder with one foot. They care more about making money than helping their fellow American get the job done. OSHA and ball-less ICs like OSHA don't care about the bigger picture. They don't care about cleaning up the ocean. All they care about is shutting down a working machine that is cleaning up our spilled oil and searching for the owner of the barges- only to yell at him for not having enough fire extinguishers.
Give me a break. I can't believe that as a child, THESE are the RETARDS I have to look up to as LEADERS of MY Country. Give me a ducking break.
QUACK!
My Blogs!
- Thrill
- May God bless the United States of America and the Nation of Israel!
Showing posts with label Saving the Planet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saving the Planet. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
One-child Policy Condemns 24m Bachelors to Life Without a Wife
by: Jane Macartney in Beijing
China’s “one couple, one child” family planning policy could leave more than 24 million men unable to find a bride by the end of the decade, a report says.
The country’s leading think-tank describes the gender imbalance among newborns as the most serious demographic problem facing China. The surplus of bachelors — known as “bare branches” — in the rural areas has been described by senior officials as a problem that could lead to a surge in crime and social instability, the ruling Communist Party’s greatest fear.
The report makes no bones about how the one-child policy — introduced to curb population growth and still in place in most circumstances — has led to a preference for boys. “Sex-specific abortions remained extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas,” the report, published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said.
Officials acknowledged that the introduction of ultrasound scans in the 1980s resulted in a surge of abortions of female foetuses after parents tried to ensure that their only child was a boy who could carry on the family line. That tradition is important in a society where reverence of ancestors continues to underpin the social structure and where farmers want sons. “The problem is more serious in rural areas due to the lack of a social security system,” the report said. “Ageing farmers have to rely on their offspring.”
The normal birth ratio of 103-107 boys for every 100 girls began to shift in the 1980s. It rose from 108 boys in 1982 to 111 in 1990 and 116 a decade later. A report in the British Medical Journal last year by Therese Hesketh of University College London noted that two poorer, mainly rural provinces had the highest imbalances, with 140 boys for every 100 girls in the 1-to-4 age range. Dr Hesketh wrote: “Nothing can be done now to prevent this imminent generation of excess men.”
However, this report added that the national trend of gender imbalance had begun to slow since 2005, when it soared to 119 male births for every 100 female. One Chinese expert said that the rate had risen to 120.49 to 100 by the end of 2006, meaning that males born since 1980 would have outnumbered females born in the same period by 38 million at the end of 2008.
That China’s latest report continues to highlight the gravity of the situation serves to underscore how worried the leadership is over an issue that only a policy change, combined with nature and time, can solve. Some Chinese demographers hinted that it was time to shift from the family planning policy that has been credited with preventing 400 million births — which would, its backers claim, have swollen the population to unsustainable levels.
Abortion is legal and widely available. China bans tests to determine the gender of a foetus for non-medical reasons, but these are still carried out, mainly by underground clinics in rural areas. The law does not expressly prohibit or even define late-term termination of pregnancies.
Female infanticide is not uncommon, although rarely mentioned. Some families do not register the birth of daughters so that they can try legally for a son. In rural areas, farmers who have a daughter are now allowed to have a second child.
Despite these developments men in poverty-stricken regions will face the greatest difficulty in finding a wife after 2020, Wang Yuesheng, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said.
Mr Wang said: “The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40 years old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on.”
China’s “one couple, one child” family planning policy could leave more than 24 million men unable to find a bride by the end of the decade, a report says.
The country’s leading think-tank describes the gender imbalance among newborns as the most serious demographic problem facing China. The surplus of bachelors — known as “bare branches” — in the rural areas has been described by senior officials as a problem that could lead to a surge in crime and social instability, the ruling Communist Party’s greatest fear.
The report makes no bones about how the one-child policy — introduced to curb population growth and still in place in most circumstances — has led to a preference for boys. “Sex-specific abortions remained extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas,” the report, published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said.
Officials acknowledged that the introduction of ultrasound scans in the 1980s resulted in a surge of abortions of female foetuses after parents tried to ensure that their only child was a boy who could carry on the family line. That tradition is important in a society where reverence of ancestors continues to underpin the social structure and where farmers want sons. “The problem is more serious in rural areas due to the lack of a social security system,” the report said. “Ageing farmers have to rely on their offspring.”
The normal birth ratio of 103-107 boys for every 100 girls began to shift in the 1980s. It rose from 108 boys in 1982 to 111 in 1990 and 116 a decade later. A report in the British Medical Journal last year by Therese Hesketh of University College London noted that two poorer, mainly rural provinces had the highest imbalances, with 140 boys for every 100 girls in the 1-to-4 age range. Dr Hesketh wrote: “Nothing can be done now to prevent this imminent generation of excess men.”
However, this report added that the national trend of gender imbalance had begun to slow since 2005, when it soared to 119 male births for every 100 female. One Chinese expert said that the rate had risen to 120.49 to 100 by the end of 2006, meaning that males born since 1980 would have outnumbered females born in the same period by 38 million at the end of 2008.
That China’s latest report continues to highlight the gravity of the situation serves to underscore how worried the leadership is over an issue that only a policy change, combined with nature and time, can solve. Some Chinese demographers hinted that it was time to shift from the family planning policy that has been credited with preventing 400 million births — which would, its backers claim, have swollen the population to unsustainable levels.
Abortion is legal and widely available. China bans tests to determine the gender of a foetus for non-medical reasons, but these are still carried out, mainly by underground clinics in rural areas. The law does not expressly prohibit or even define late-term termination of pregnancies.
Female infanticide is not uncommon, although rarely mentioned. Some families do not register the birth of daughters so that they can try legally for a son. In rural areas, farmers who have a daughter are now allowed to have a second child.
Despite these developments men in poverty-stricken regions will face the greatest difficulty in finding a wife after 2020, Wang Yuesheng, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said.
Mr Wang said: “The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40 years old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on.”
Friday, December 11, 2009
UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate
By: Mike Flynn
A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.
During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.
However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.
The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.
“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”
“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”
Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.
McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.
“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”
“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”
Professor Schneider was interviewed for McAleer’s “Not Evil Just Wrong” documentary but lawyers later wrote to McAleer saying he was withdrawing permission for the interview to be used.
McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming.
His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.
A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.
McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.
He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.
During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.
However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.
The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.
“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”
“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”
Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.
McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.
“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”
“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”
Professor Schneider was interviewed for McAleer’s “Not Evil Just Wrong” documentary but lawyers later wrote to McAleer saying he was withdrawing permission for the interview to be used.
McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming.
His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
A Tall Glass of Shut the --- up!
On the flip side to bashing the tap water in Southern CA, I want to share with you an interesting article by Ramon Cruz. EVERY human I know freaks out whenever I drink from a hose or faucet. Now I can bring the following article to the table.
This post is by Ramon Cruz, Senior Policy Analyst for Living Cities at Environmental Defense Fund.
It's ironic. In many parts of the world, there is no clean drinking water. Here in the U.S., pure, drinkable water flows out of every tap, and yet Americans buy a staggering amount of bottled water. We pay big bucks for it, too — more than $15 billion a year.
Worse of all, the bottles are overflowing our landfills and contributing to global warming. Take a look at this video from Doug James:
Also illustrating the case against bottled water:
More than a quarter of bottled water is just processed tap water, including Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola's Dasani. Despite this, bottled water consumption is growing at 10 percent a year, faster than any other beverage. We drink 15 times more bottled water today than we did in 1976.
This doesn't mean we're healthier, despite the ads. Federal regulations for municipal water are far more stringent. Bottled water rules allow higher levels of many contaminants, with more lenient requirements for filtration, testing, and reporting. See NRDC’s bottled water report for details of contaminants by brand.
The earth isn’t healthier for it, either. According to the Pacific Institute’s fact sheet (PDF), manufacturing the 30+ billion plastic water bottles we bought in 2006 required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and used three times the amount of water in the bottle.
And these numbers don't include transporting the bottles. Nearly 25 percent of bottled water crosses national borders before reaching consumers.
Adding in transportation, the energy used comes to more 50 million barrels of oil equivalent -- enough to run 3 million cars for a year.
Case study: Fiji water
Fiji Water produces more than a million bottles of water a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water (see this Fast Company article). Adding to the irony, Fiji itself uses almost no bottled water, according to a Pacific Institute report (PDF). They export it.
Shipping Fiji Water around the world increases its environmental footprint. Manufacturing and shipping a one-liter bottle produces over half a pound of greenhouse gas emissions and uses nearly 7 times the amount of water in the bottle, according to calculations by Pablo Päster on TriplePundit.
The heavy use of water is as serious as the greenhouse gas emissions. Water is fast becoming a scarce resource.
What about recycling?
Recycling would help, but we don’t usually do it. Less than 20 percent of the 28 billion single-serving water bottles that Americans buy each year are recycled. Some estimates are as low as 12 percent.
According to a Container Recycling Institute report (PDF), the national recycling rate for all beverage containers is 33 percent. In states with deposit systems, the rate jumps to 65-95 percent. But of the 11 states with deposit laws, only three include containers for non-carbonated beverages (like water), though non-carbonated beverages now comprise 27 percent of the market.
Last November, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a national bottle bill to address global warming that includes water bottles and other non-carbonated beverage containers.
The beverage industry, which long resisted deposit laws, has started to cooperate — mainly because it sees bottled water as the answer to the soda sales slump. Following months of bad publicity, manufacturers like Coke, Pepsi, and Nestlé have begun making lighter-weight plastic bottles and are encouraging consumers to recycle.
Better yet, carry tap water
If you buy bottled water, recycle the bottle. But the better solution — for you and the environment — is to drink tap water, both at home and at restaurants:
Tap water is cleaner than most bottled water.
Tap water is delivered to homes and offices for $0.002 a gallon. Bottled water, which can cost as much per gallon as gasoline, is a thousand times more expensive.
The quality of municipal water in the U.S. is generally excellent. Don’t let the recent reports about pharmaceuticals in tap water deter you — see this TreeHugger post for why.
But if you don’t trust tap water or you have old plumbing or you think tap water tastes funny, then try a water filter like those from PUR or Brita. To learn more about water filters, check out the rated list of water filter review sites at Consumer Search.
To carry water with you, use a reusable container filled with tap water. But don’t reuse single-use water bottles. This can expose you to bacterial build-up and carcinogens leached from the plastic.
Quite a few companies make reusable water bottles. There’s an ongoing debate about the safety of the polycarbonate plastic some use, but there are many safe reusable bottles made from other materials.
Use it or lose it
National Geographic’s Green Guide notes, "the federal share of funding for water systems has declined from 78 percent in 1973 to 3 percent today." This places the financial burden almost entirely on local governments.
Food and Water Watch also talks about how important it is to stop this trend and maintain the quality of municipal water. Its Take Back the Tap (PDF) report gives a detailed overview of the issues surrounding tap water versus bottled water.
This post is by Ramon Cruz, Senior Policy Analyst for Living Cities at Environmental Defense Fund.
Bottles, Bottles, everywhere
by Ramon Cruz
It's ironic. In many parts of the world, there is no clean drinking water. Here in the U.S., pure, drinkable water flows out of every tap, and yet Americans buy a staggering amount of bottled water. We pay big bucks for it, too — more than $15 billion a year.
Worse of all, the bottles are overflowing our landfills and contributing to global warming. Take a look at this video from Doug James:
Also illustrating the case against bottled water:
More than a quarter of bottled water is just processed tap water, including Pepsi's Aquafina and Coca-Cola's Dasani. Despite this, bottled water consumption is growing at 10 percent a year, faster than any other beverage. We drink 15 times more bottled water today than we did in 1976.
This doesn't mean we're healthier, despite the ads. Federal regulations for municipal water are far more stringent. Bottled water rules allow higher levels of many contaminants, with more lenient requirements for filtration, testing, and reporting. See NRDC’s bottled water report for details of contaminants by brand.
The earth isn’t healthier for it, either. According to the Pacific Institute’s fact sheet (PDF), manufacturing the 30+ billion plastic water bottles we bought in 2006 required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and used three times the amount of water in the bottle.
And these numbers don't include transporting the bottles. Nearly 25 percent of bottled water crosses national borders before reaching consumers.
Adding in transportation, the energy used comes to more 50 million barrels of oil equivalent -- enough to run 3 million cars for a year.
Case study: Fiji water
Fiji Water produces more than a million bottles of water a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water (see this Fast Company article). Adding to the irony, Fiji itself uses almost no bottled water, according to a Pacific Institute report (PDF). They export it.
Shipping Fiji Water around the world increases its environmental footprint. Manufacturing and shipping a one-liter bottle produces over half a pound of greenhouse gas emissions and uses nearly 7 times the amount of water in the bottle, according to calculations by Pablo Päster on TriplePundit.
The heavy use of water is as serious as the greenhouse gas emissions. Water is fast becoming a scarce resource.
What about recycling?
Recycling would help, but we don’t usually do it. Less than 20 percent of the 28 billion single-serving water bottles that Americans buy each year are recycled. Some estimates are as low as 12 percent.
According to a Container Recycling Institute report (PDF), the national recycling rate for all beverage containers is 33 percent. In states with deposit systems, the rate jumps to 65-95 percent. But of the 11 states with deposit laws, only three include containers for non-carbonated beverages (like water), though non-carbonated beverages now comprise 27 percent of the market.
Last November, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a national bottle bill to address global warming that includes water bottles and other non-carbonated beverage containers.
The beverage industry, which long resisted deposit laws, has started to cooperate — mainly because it sees bottled water as the answer to the soda sales slump. Following months of bad publicity, manufacturers like Coke, Pepsi, and Nestlé have begun making lighter-weight plastic bottles and are encouraging consumers to recycle.
Better yet, carry tap water
If you buy bottled water, recycle the bottle. But the better solution — for you and the environment — is to drink tap water, both at home and at restaurants:
Tap water is cleaner than most bottled water.
Tap water is delivered to homes and offices for $0.002 a gallon. Bottled water, which can cost as much per gallon as gasoline, is a thousand times more expensive.
The quality of municipal water in the U.S. is generally excellent. Don’t let the recent reports about pharmaceuticals in tap water deter you — see this TreeHugger post for why.
But if you don’t trust tap water or you have old plumbing or you think tap water tastes funny, then try a water filter like those from PUR or Brita. To learn more about water filters, check out the rated list of water filter review sites at Consumer Search.
To carry water with you, use a reusable container filled with tap water. But don’t reuse single-use water bottles. This can expose you to bacterial build-up and carcinogens leached from the plastic.
Quite a few companies make reusable water bottles. There’s an ongoing debate about the safety of the polycarbonate plastic some use, but there are many safe reusable bottles made from other materials.
Use it or lose it
National Geographic’s Green Guide notes, "the federal share of funding for water systems has declined from 78 percent in 1973 to 3 percent today." This places the financial burden almost entirely on local governments.
Food and Water Watch also talks about how important it is to stop this trend and maintain the quality of municipal water. Its Take Back the Tap (PDF) report gives a detailed overview of the issues surrounding tap water versus bottled water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)