Testimonials. of Progress.

This would not be much of a universe if
it wasn’t also home to the people you love
Stephen Hawking


➽  April 29, 2017: 200,000 people came together for the People’s Climate March in Washington, DC, with millions more in total marching in communities around America and the world.

We sent a message loud and clear to President Donald Trump and US Congress: it’s time to stop the backsliding on climate change; it’s time to meet the most urgent challenge of our generation.


  Hot off the Press:    

After the first US oil firm in history passed a climate change resolution against its own board’s advice, we think we’re ready to make climate history with Exxon

If you have a pension, you are probably an Exxon shareholder. Let’s ride this momentum and finally hold Big Oil to account.

You may not know it, but there was some unbelievable climate momentum building recently at Exxon’s AGM, beginning of June this year. After decades of inaction in the face of runaway climate change, Exxon shareholders are finally preparing to do something about it.

Exxon’s AGM came hot on the heels of climate history: just a few weeks before, investors forced Occidental Petroleum to report on how climate change affects its business—even though the board of directors opposed it. It is the first time in history that a US oil firm has passed a pro-environment resolution.

Wait, it gets better. The resolution passed because its largest shareholder, BlackRock, supported it—and BlackRock is also the second-biggest shareholder in Exxon. An almost identical motion was going forward at Exxon’s AGM.

The last piece of the puzzle? You. That’s right, you are probably an investor in Exxon

If you live in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia, you’ve probably contributed to a mutual fund, superannuation fund, or pension fund – like Vanguard, Canada Pension Plan or AustralianSuper—that invests in Exxon. Or maybe you’ve paid into a 401(k) or other private pension.

You could be the key to making sure major investors vote for our proposals and finally hold big oil to account. Can you add your voice now?

Use our special tool to email your fund manager and make climate history.

If we get Exxon—of all corporations—to agree to take climate change seriously and file a report on how a two-degree increase in global temperatures will have a disastrous effect on both the climate and its bottom line, well, that changes everything. And the best part is that even since Exxon’s Board of Directors opposed the motion—and they did!—it doesn’t matter as long as a majority of shareholders supported it.

This is one of the most effective ways to get a massive, multinational billion-dollar corporation to change its ways. In the past, we have gained historic support for a resolution calling on Canada’s biggest tar sands company to disclose its lobbying and political spending. We also forced mining giant Newmont to promise investors that a controversial mining project wouldn’t go ahead without community consent.

There is one group that Big Oil is always sure to listen to: its shareholders. And that gives anyone with a pension, a mutual fund, a 401(k) or superannuation fund enormous power. Let’s use it.

Click here to finally force Exxon to take climate change seriously.

Thanks for all that you do,

Liz, Michael, Lisa and the rest of the team at SumOfUs

More information:

Occidental Holders Override Board in Approving Climate Proposal, Bloomberg, May 12, 2017
Climate proposal approved by US oil firm Occidental Petroleum despite opposition by its board, South China Morning Post, May 13, 2017
Text of Exxon 2 degree scenario analysis shareholder resolution, CERES website, May 2017




UCS - Science for a healthy planet and safer world



➽  Tell the fossil fuel industry it’s time for climate action.

B u s i n e s s   a s   u s u a l
isn’t a climate action plan

Fossil fuel corporations are receiving record-breaking pressure to align their businesses with global climate action.

Tell ExxonMobil and Chevron that it’s time to lay out a clear path forward.

Take Action Today!

Tell ExxonMobil and Chevron: It’s Time to Act on Climate

At our recent Houston event, Climate Change and Climate Risk, investment risk expert Robert Litterman told the crowd that “it is time to slam on the brakes, and that’s not going to be good for the fossil fuel companies.”

It’s a critical message and the shareholder community is listening: just days later, ExxonMobil shareholders approved a climate resolution by an unprecedented 62.3 percent! This is the highest vote for any climate-related measure at the world’s largest publicly traded oil company. UCS supporters like you helped win this major victory at ExxonMobil’s annual meeting last week by demanding action from cities, states, the nation, and corporations.

Growing numbers of Chevron shareholders also supported resolutions demanding better disclosure of climate risks, business strategies, and corporate lobbying. In the face of the national and global call for climate action, investors want more information about what the low-carbon transition means for the future of major fossil fuel companies!

The fossil fuel industry has tried to outmaneuver climate activists, but thanks to you, we’ve gained incredible ground. Even as President Trump seeks to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, we are showing these companies that climate action must remain a priority. These companies have nowhere to hide. Now, they must act.

Tell ExxonMobil and Chevron: business as usual is not a climate action plan. It’s time to act!

Shareholders and the public have made it abundantly clear that reliance on fossil fuels cannot be the way forward. The votes last week represent a groundbreaking shift in the public conversation, and the fossil fuel industry needs to respond.

While these companies claim to be addressing climate risks, they also fund groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, which spreads climate disinformation and lobbies against climate action including US participation in the Paris Climate Agreement. And just days after ExxonMobil’s annual meeting, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman stepped up his investigation into whether the company misled investors and the public about the climate risks of its product.

We must hold major fossil fuel companies and their surrogates accountable.

It’s time for ExxonMobil and Chevron to respond to the concerns spelled out in the climate resolutions that garnered major support among their own shareholders. It’s time for them to lay out a clean and honest plan to join the global effort on climate change.

Act now: tell ExxonMobil and Chevron that they can’t ignore climate change.

Kathy MulveyClimate Accountability Campaign Manager and Advocate
Union of Concerned Scientists


➽  Tell the EU Commission it’s time to take on plastic waste


Thanks to the lobbying efforts of massive brands like Coca-Cola, our oceans and rivers are becoming nothing more than plastic landfills. For years the plastic lobby has been derailing legislative efforts to reduce plastic production and increase recycling — while fish and birds across the world choke on plastic. But finally, we have a chance for a change. By the end of the year [2017], the EU Commission will release a new plastic strategy. It could be a game changer for the planet or another concession to corporate lobbyists. Together, we can make sure our voices are heard louder than the corporate lobbyists’. Will you join us? SumOfUs.org — Fighting for people over profits.

More information

Plastic fibres found in tap water around the world, study reveals
Guardian. 6 September 2017.

Roadmap, Strategy on Plastics in a Circular Economy
European Commission. 26 January 2017.

Whale found dying off coast of Norway with 30 plastic bags in its stomach
The Telegraph. 3 February 2017.



Help this little island nation bring back hope for their loving sea to stop rising !!

Help all of these island nations & many more islands and coastal cities & regions regain Hope of Surviving.
Give Your Children and Theirs in turn Hope for Their Future — and Hope for Their Parents & Grandparents (You!) to assume Their Liability (Yours!)



➽  The first step towards solving a problem is recognizing it. The following Independent (UK) article discloses a researcher estimate that today’s young people would have to spend up to 500 trillion EUR on extraction technologies, if high emissions continue.

So, albeit an article chiefly rendering a lump in the stomach, the fact that scientists finally are pointing towards the necessity of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) removal — as a complement to or perhaps even a substitue for GHG emissions reduction and scanty* renewable energy initiatives — feels at least refreshing.
(*) As in “Scanty investment is a pointless waste of money”.

Furthermore, the Read More addendums (not the Read More links) below the article learn about a ground-breaking lawsuit brought against the US Government by 21 children. Common caring people breathing down the necks of Big Oil and their political partners and their also-rans indicate that changes are on their way. Which is good, and necessary as an conceptual awareness builder for the masses — however impotent as a paradigm changer, since the world with no further delay must initiate a direct GHG removal and implement a sustainable energy system based on CCR — atmospheric Carbon Capture and Recycling technology. Tree replanting initiatives are heart-felt as children often are involved therein. But they will come into the picture only when the trees are substantially grown (provided sufficient irrigation) — which takes a couple of decades — and once replanting numbers have reached the 10 trillion (10 000 billion, 10 million million) mark (as compared to tops 10 million added a year currently), from that mark on – year upon year – replanting must match the projected continued annual atmosperic GHG level increase.



➽  We’re too late to stop global warming with renewables. We need to do something much more drastic, say scientists

Carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere to avoid extreme climate change, say scientists

One of the first scientists to warn of the dangers of climate change, Professor Jim Hansen, warns the ‘s*** is hitting the fan’

Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent | @montaukian | Tuesday 18 July 2017

Video  ➽  Reducing emissions won’t stop global warming, claims study

Video slides transcription:  ➽

Reducing Greenhouse-gas emissions is not enough to limit global warming to a level that wouldn’t risk young people’s future.

A new Earth System Dynamics study reveals we need negative emissions, i.e REMOVAL of CO2 from the atmosphere [and from the oceans and lakes/ AES comment].

If rapid phase-down of fossil fuels starts soon, measures such as reforestation and improving soils could achieve the needed CO2 extraction at low cost.

The researchers estimate that today’s young people would have to spend up to 500 trillion Euros on extraction technologies, if high emissions continue.

“Continued high fossil fuel emissions would* saddle young people with a massive, expensive cleanup problem and growing deleterious climate impacts … which should provide incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay.”  — Jim Hansen, professor of Columbia University and lead author of the ESD study

➽  Humans must start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere [and from the oceans and lakes/ AES comment] as soon as possible to avoid saddling future generations with a choice between extreme climate change or spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to avoid it, according to new research.

An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”.

But they warned this would not be enough and efforts would need to be made to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent.

This, the scientists argued, could be mostly achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility, a relatively low-cost way to remove carbon from the air.

Other more expensive methods, such as burning biomass in power plants fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage or devices that can remove carbon from the air directly, might also be necessary and would become increasingly needed if steps were not taken soon.

An academic paper in the journal Earth System Dynamics estimated such industrial processes could cost up to $535 trillion this century and “also have large risks and uncertain feasibility.

“Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible clean-up or growing deleterious climate impacts or both,” said the paper.

“We conclude that the world has already overshot appropriate targets for greenhouse gas amount and global temperature, and we thus infer an urgent need for rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions [and] actions that draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide”.

“These tasks are formidable and … they are not being pursued globally”.

Cuts to emissions of greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone would also be required.

The study is to be used as part of a ground-breaking lawsuit brought against the US Government by 21 children in which the plaintiffs claim their constitutional right to have a health climate in which to live in is being violated by federal policies.

If the case succeeds, environmentalists believe it could force the Trump administration to reduce greenhouse gases and take other measures to prevent global warming.

The paper pointed out that the last time temperatures were this high, during the Eemian period, global sea levels were about six to nine metres higher than they are today, suggesting significant rises are still to occur.

The paper said that the Paris Agreement, the tumbling price of renewable energy and the recent slowdown in the increase of fossil fuel emissions had led to a sense of optimism around the world.

But, speaking to The Independent, Professor Hansen said he believed this optimism was misplaced.

“The narrative that’s out there now … is that we’ve turned the corner,” he said.

“On the contrary, what we show is the rate of growth of climate forcing caused by increased methane [and other gases] is actually accelerating. That’s why it’s urgent.”

Asked to assess the world’s current progress in fighting climate change, he said the “s*** is hitting the fan”.

Professor Hansen, now a scientist at the Columbia University Earth Institute in the US, said he believed the court case had a chance of winning.

A court would not be able to tell the Government what to do, he admitted, but would be able to say that failing to deal with the problem was unconstitutional and require politicians to produce an effective plan.

The paper said the need for “prompt action implied by these realities [of climate change] may not be a surprise to the relevant scientific community” because of the available evidence.

“However, effective communication with the public of the urgency to stem human-caused climate change is hampered by the inertia of the climate system, especially the ocean and the ice sheets, which respond rather slowly to climate forcings, thus allowing future consequences to build up before broad public concern awakens,” it said.

All amplifying feedbacks, including atmospheric water vapor, sea ice cover, soil carbon release and ice sheet melt could be reduced by rapid emissions phasedown.

“This would reduce the risk of climate change running out of humanity’s control and provide time to assess the climate response, develop relevant technologies, and consider further purposeful actions to limit and/or adapt to climate change.”

It warned that sea level rise of up to a metre “may be inevitable even if emissions decline” and would have “dire consequences”.

Sea level rise of several metres would result in “humanitarian and economic disasters”.

“Given the increasing proportion of global population living in coastal areas, there is potential for forced migrations of hundreds of millions of people, dwarfing prior refugee humanitarian crises, challenging global governance and security,” the paper said.

About 65 per cent of the power produced by the massive Drax power plant in North Yorkshire comes from burning biomass, making it the largest single renewable electricity generator in the UK, although some dispute how green the process is.

If it was to be fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS), it would create the type of negative emissions system envisaged in the paper. Drax was involved in the White Rose project to build a £1bn CCS plant but pulled out after cuts to renewable energy subsidies by the Government.

It insisted that biomass with CCS could make a major difference to the fight against climate change.

A Drax spokesperson said: “We are confident the technology we developed as part of the White Rose project has real potential in terms of delivering dramatic reductions to carbon emissions produced by power stations and heavy industry.

“However, the current regulatory environment means any such project isn’t viable at the present time. We are also awaiting the Government’s response to Lord Oxburgh’s review into CCS.”


 The next-below six-paneled graph (click here to enlarge) exhibits great progress on paramount aspects of humanity living conditions delivered by Our World In Data, an online publication produced at the University of Oxford. Source-critical as always (just as we’d like to anticipate all humans always to be), we do not deem them to go about somebody’s business or meet someone’s agenda.

Albeit the world imminently would need to see a corresponding amelioration in the field of climate change related measurements, no signs of progress is yet to be discerned. Yes, China has bagged a number of new coal plants and go for developing solar voltaics, and yes, intentions in terms of wind mill parks and solar voltaic parks and research on solar and wind power battery (and some other) storage packs seem to escalate globally. But so do extraction from present and newly found fossil subterranean and suboceanic oil deposits, shale gas layers and tar sand fields — fossil production is picking up faster than renewable energy does, whereby the 3 to 4 % renewables (including hydro power) of the total energy production in the world is prognosticated to stay at 4 to 5 % even future-wise. And since energy production is expected to have picked up by 50 % by year 2050 (graph just below exhibiting 1990 – 2040 developments), predominantly from fossil fuels, this implies we’ll get a tremendous atmospheric greenhouse gas addon to cope with. Which no way would we be able to — naturally — ever so much worse than what we can cope with today, as this would be.

➽  1990 – 2040 historic + projected future Global Energy consumption by fuel type (N.B.: ‘Liquids‘ in the graph implies OIL, whereas ‘Renewables‘ include Hydro power)

➽  Let’s therefore earnestly hope that humanity as a race and its societies can withstand individual greed and flip 180 degrees over the hostile climate change development graphs of our era. With the help of us at AES our without it. Having achieved such formidable grandeur as shown by the graphs below, makes at least ourselves hopeful of mankind once more succeeding. HOWEVER,  this will necessitate very decisive resolve induced by a market demand forcefully based on a unanimous agreement by all of us Earthlings in order to achieve a fossil to renewables — and as We at AES see necessary, specifically a fossil to CCR fuels  transition.

➽  Enlarge graph

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

➽  Being clear about who needs to — anticipating who’s going to — bring about an energy system paradigm shift in favor of recycling atmospheric fossil waste greenhouse gases into new clean, cheap, eternal and resource resilient fuels in a sustainable and CSR-happy energy producing corporate future: THE MARKET, We at AES still rejoice over tokens that not every crooked trail on the journey of global “evil corporations” is paved by politicians.

Markets burgeoning from the fossil free demand of sensible, Common Caring People will neither need the direct support of our global politician community, nor benefit from its opposition. Therefore, the below reported battle on our road back to environmental health and corporate as well political sanity was of utmost importance, proving so encouraging to us all inside the Common Caring People community. Be sure about that we will thrust ahead on domain after domain, biting the head of Greed in its ugliest manifestos, faces and feces — specially heart-felt to us at AES of course on the energy system domain.

Read this, issued August 22, 2017 (email subscriber/member distribution), on the subject of Neonics spread with agriculture and forestry insecticides:  ➽


➽  Per,

Great news: The European Commission just announced they won’t greenlight the Bayer Monsanto merger.

And you made it happen!

You and thousands of SumOfUs members around the world bombarded top EU decision-maker, Commissioner Vestager with tweets, emails and postcards raising the alarm about this merger. And Vestager just replied directly to you, saying she shares your concerns.

Vestager's tweet

She’ll now open an in-depth probe of the merger. This will take months — and gives us more time to stop the merger once and for all.

This is a huge victory: for the bees, the environment, our food — and especially for you.

The merger was not approved!

SumOfUs members like you opposed this merger from the very beginning — and built up one of our strongest campaigns ever: more than 700,000 of you signed our petition. And with the generous donations from thousands of SumOfUs members, we were able to pay for: Congressional hearings, our own people-powered lobbyist, and a legal White Paper that proves that this merger is illegal.

But the SumOfUs community didn’t stop there: we even took over the whole politico.eu homepage and pressured decision makers in Brussels with our ads:

Our ads in Politico
This powerful message was hard to ignore!

Bayer and Monsanto wanted the EU to quietly approve their merger. But you didn’t let that happen. You ramped up our campaign and pressured the Commission to first extend its review, and then finally open an in-depth investigation.

This is a crushing defeat for Bayer and Monsanto — but our fight is far from over. In fact, we will need to work harder than ever in the upcoming months to stop their plans. But with this victory, you have proven once again how strong our community is. And I have no doubts that together, we will stop this merger for good.

Thank you so much for all that you do,
Anne and the team at SumOfUs

PS: If you can, please chip in now to help us fighting the Bayer-Monsanto merger till the end.

More information:

EU Commission starts in-depth probe of Bayer, Monsanto deal, Reuters, August 22, 2017.
Letter from Margrethe Vestager, August 22, 2017.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

➽  Costa Rica Wants to Become World’s First Country to Eliminate Single-Use Plastics

Costa Rican politicians and corporate life stand up tall. A small country with a big heart. And brains. For the rest of the world to follow? Aye, let’s hope the signals reach out, the signs be seen, Greed and public indolence take a square beating…


Costa Rica Wants to Become World’s First Country to Eliminate Single-Use Plastics

 Costa Rica wants to become the world’s first country to achieve a comprehensive national strategy to eliminate single-use plastics by 2021.

The Central American nation intends to replace these wasteful, ocean-clogging items—such as plastic store bags, straws, coffee stirrers, containers and plastic cutlery—for biodegradable or water-soluble alternatives, or products made of renewable materials (think plant starches).

The initiative is led by Costa Rica’s Ministries of Health and Environment and Energy with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and from local governments, civil society and various private sector groups.

Costa Rican government officials announced the country’s ambitious plan on June 5, World Environment Day.

“Being a country free of single use plastics is our mantra and our mission,” according to a joint statement from Environment and Energy minister Edgar Gutiérrez, Health minister María Esther Anchía, and Alice Shackelford, resident representative for UNDP Costa Rica.

“It’s not going to be easy, and the government can’t do it alone,” the statement continues. “To promote these changes, we need all sectors—public and private—to commit to actions to replace single-use plastic through five strategic actions: municipal incentives, policies and institutional guidelines for suppliers; replacement of single-use plastic products; research and development—and investment in strategic initiatives.”

“We also need the leadership and participation of all: women, men, boys and girls,” the statement notes.

Costa Rica has emerged as an global environmental leader, with its frequent 100 percent renewable energy streaks and its 2021 goal of becoming carbon neutral—a deadline set a decade ago.

However, the officials point out in their statement that Costa Rica’s impressive environmental record still has room for improvement.

“Although the country has been an example to the world by reversing deforestation and doubling its forest cover from 26 percent in 1984 to more than 52 percent this year, today one fifth of the 4,000 tonnes of solid waste produced daily is not collected and ends up as part of the Costa Rican landscape, also polluting rivers and beaches,” they explain.

“Single-use plastics are a problem not only for Costa Rica but also for the whole world,” they add. “It is estimated that if the current consumption pattern continues, by 2050 there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish—measured by weight. For this reason, we began our journey to turn Costa Rica into a single-use plastic-free zone.”

“It’s a win-win for all: Costa Rica, the people and the planet.”

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Here are all our posts in this blog:

Water. and Air.   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Nov 27)
Facts. non-Alternative.      –   –   –   –   –   (2017 Feb 20)   
News. Terrifying.    –    –   –   –   –   –   –   (2017 Mar 29) 
Zero options? Never.     –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 05)
Scenarios. and Implications.    –   –   –   –   (2017 Jan 02)
Gates Notes. on Climate-Energy.       –   –   (2017 Jan 24)
Answers. to Questions.       –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
Testimonials. of Progress.     –   –   –   –     (2017 Jul 21)
CCR – APS processes     –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
APS/e3 concept outlines     –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
CatELab-APS/e3 research software    –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
CatELab & APS/e3 integrated processes   –   (2016 Dec 14)

Here is our corporate website & our funding campaign:

Acwareus Climate-Energy Solutions – official website
Our [imminent] funding campaign (draft)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __


News. Terrifying.


We don’t believe all too many people zap in on news channels these days. Today we’re trapped inside a tremendous media buzz diluting each source of news or fact which supplant one another by their combined magnitude, like blurring their shapes, outlines, features, rendering each one as visibly or audibly hard to discern as any particular straw in a meadow. Blocking or distracting our view and gradually leaving us unable to focus on or even discern just about anything — except that growing ethereal buzz itself. Over-consuming buzz and excessive source zapping makes us tired and often apathetic before or resistant to intriguing news or facts even at times when we’re able to actually discern them. This is a paramount reason why news or fact be concealed to so many, one way that indifference, insouciance, and soon enough ignorance goes round. This is a contributory reason for allowing Trumpeting voices to replace facts with alternatives and to win us over to their side, the dark side.

Diver’s shocking film from the tourist paradise

The British diver Rich Horner was filming during a diving tour in the waters of the Bali holiday paradise, then posted the video on YouTube, reports The Guardian.
It’s no exaggeration to claim that many viewers where shocked by what they saw.
For a few seconds you image Horner swimming around typically colorful shoals of fish in the wonderful blue tropical waters. 
But you quickly discover that it’s not about fish shoals, but an infinite underwater flood of plastic and other debris. The fish are gone – devastation is a fact and tourists flee Bali’s beaches.
The video was filmed at the popular Manta Point dive site on the island of Nusa Penida, twenty kilometers off Bali.
Rich Horner bdescribes what he saw as “plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic bags, plastic cans, plastic straws, plastic bags, wrapping plastic and even more plastic, plastic and plastic”.
Bali’s got a problem with the dirty seas. Environmental problems in and around Bali have been widely observed in recent months. Every year during the rainy season, the waters around the island are flooded with debris, mainly derived from neighboring Java.
And today they do not have the resources to deal with the trash.

➽  By this post we wish to help winning those who live in darkness [back] over to the bright side which stands for enlightenment and truth, by supplying news and facts that we know are concealed to so many. However terrifying they may seem, they’re meant to open Your eyes to the necessities we must procure and provide in order to turn our astray-drifting world around and haul it to a safe harbor for repairs.

All articles supplied below aim at bringing You insight about what’s really going on, insight You may have been denied by governments’, authorities’, companies’, and some main-stream medias’ mercenary propagandist agendas — along perhaps with that buzz.

The first couple of articles disclose the horrifying situation our oceans and lakes are in when it comes to plastification. The first one discloses a tragic example among a so tragically great number of others out there, never reaching the newspaper stands. Should we at ACES ever reach our aim of providing the world with clean, cheap fuels out-competing all the fossil ones and make a handsome profit thereof, it is our solemn pledgehereby officially announced, mark our words – that every penny we make being dispensable to the fruition of our primary business undertakings, will go to a foundation working for the deplastification of our oceans and lakes! In other words: »
» to work for a ban on non-decomposable plastic bags and other plastic packaging materials, imminently starting our own collaboration network for producing decomposable packaging and some other plastics at very competitive prices (the main thing markets do understand).
» the purge of those hundreds of millions of tons of plastic debris swirling around out there, accruing as we speak and filling the stomachs of uncountable living creatures facing a slow and painful death. And, ghoulishly enough, later when their carcass has decomposed (as distinct from plastic bags), the plastic bags trapped in their abdomen come at large once again, able to do their work as executioners over and over again, killing more and more living creatures before – if ever – “worn out”.
» the ban for nano- and micro-plastics in products like toothpaste and makeup, and for fleece fabric in clothing, blankets etc leaking micro-plastics when washed. Those chemical laden micro-plastics sicken and kill various organisms and fish in the oceans and lakes, gradually turning fresh waters into mere sewagesewage we’ll be unable EVER to clear out.

A is for the Arctic, Which is Melting

“I have been looking at Arctic weather patterns for 35 years and have never seen anything close to what we’ve experienced these past two winters,”

— Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (via Quartz)

When it comes to talk about the effects of global warming a lot of focus has been on Antartica, which saw record low levels of ice this past year, but as winter in the Northern Hemisphere comes to an end all eyes are on the Arctic as the trend toward higher temperatures, low sea ice levels, and shockingly low levels of human panic and action continue.

For a bit of background, when I talk about the Arctic I am talking about the sea of ice to the north of Canada and Russia. In the summer, every summer, the ice melts as the sun becomes a constant fixture in the sky, and every winter the ice freezes again. It’s all normal and all due to Earth’s orbit, tilt, and the natural warming and cooling the seasons bring.

This winter the Arctic froze, and when scientists measured the ice at it’s largest extent, there was a whole lot missing. Average Arctic ice extent should be something like 6.04 million square miles, in March of 2017, when we take these kinds of measurements, we had 5.57 million square miles of ice. We are missing 471,000 square miles of ice! And this isn’t the first time we have been below average, and it is not going to be the last.

Less ice might not like such a big deal, except that it is. Arctic sea ice melt contributes to further and faster warming, since our bright white ice cap will be gone, it won’t reflect the sun’s rays back into space ad instead the heat will be absorbed by the ocean. Sea levels will rise, of course, and that’s bad for anyone living along the coast which is a whole lot of American citizens. Ocean and air currents will change due to the ice being gone and the temperatures being warmer. This leads to more climate change on average and more unstable weather patterns day to day.

And of course, in the end, it all boils down to more death and suffering for animals and mostly poor people who are already suffering, but it won’t end with them. We will all feel the ramifications of this.

A wise man once said “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” and despite the fact that, yes, sea ice freezes and melts according to the seasons and yes anomalies happen and some years are freakishly colder or warmer than others the truth is  that for a while now we have been trending farther and farther outside of the averages. Take a look at the terrifying graph below for example:


See that part on the right that’s clearly outside of the gray area average, that was the end of 2016, far outside even a regular bad year. See the little line on the left sitting below every other year back to 1978? That’s the beginning of 2017 continuing along on a catastrophic path toward sea level rise, ocean ecosystem disruption, and the first signs of the end times.

Now, if we remember our geometry education back in high school, we know that area and volume are different. Could it be that the ice is still there but just taking on a different shape? Nope. Take a look at this graph of bad news showing monthly global ice by volume:


See that line veering off to the right well outside the mean and below every other year as far back as 1981, that’s 2016. I haven’t seen a version with 2017 on it yet, but I would bet a lot of money that just like ice area measurements we are still trending down and still, no one is doing anything about it. Instead, we’re running around arguing about whether or not the problem is even real.

This is not normal. None of this is normal! You may hear people talk about natural cycles but take a look at another graph. This one shows measurement of atmospheric CO2 found in drilled ice cores containing bubbles of air from thousands of years ago. See that big spike on the end, well outside of anything ever, that 1950 to now. It is us! We are doing this!


Now, this is all pretty bad, but it actually gets even worse. So much worse. All hope of stopping these trends is gone. We have done too much damage. CO2 measurements will continue to rise, and the ice is going to go on melting, even if we stopped everything, all the cars, all the deforestation, all the burning, today. There is just no way, right now, that we can get the gasses we put into the atmosphere, and the ocean, back out.

We are fucked. We are so fucked and so stupid.

Scientists started warning us back in 60s that burning fossil fuels and putting greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane into the atmosphere were going to lead to a warmer Earth which would lead to collapsing ecosystems and unstable weather patterns but too many people wanted to keep on making money and fought long and hard, and are still fighting today, to keep you from panicking or changing the way you do things.

So what can you do now? Hell, why do anything if we are already too far gone?

Well, even thought the earth is going to warm and the climate is going to change, and many many people and animals are going to die, we can lessen the extent and the suffering if we start today.

The EPA has a list of things you can do today, but ost of us have read it and have made the changes that we can, but what we really need to do now is get the people who are in charge to stop being so damn selfish and stupid and do something about it. We need to contact our leaders in Congress and let them know that we will not stand for their cowardice any longer. You can even fax them by text now! There is no excuse.

Change needs to happen now if we want to have a future where humans can at least survive, and you need to ask yourself here and now, do you care? Be honest with yourself, do you want something to be done, or do you like it better when you pretend there is no consensus or science to back this up? Are you a part of the solution or part of the problem?


If you like this post check out my weekly-ish newsletter for interesting reads + my own existential musings on life, love, and inevitable human suffering, or buy me a cup of coffee perhaps?

This post was written for the 2017 Blogging A to Z Challenge. My theme is The World is Really an Awful Place. You can read the rest of the posts under the AtoZ2017 tag.

Featured image via Unsplash


Hello! My name is Lisa. I find the human condition fascinating and I often write stuff about that. I blog at zenandpi.com but you can also find me on Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram, and if you like what I do, consider signing up for my newsletter. Thanks 🙂




This Antarctic glacier is cracking from the inside out — and that’s bad news for all of us

Because of rising sea levels

A rift in Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in West Antarctica, photographed on November 4th.  NASA/Nathan Kurtz
A massive glacier at the edge of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is cracking from the inside out at accelerating speed. That’s alarming because this glacier — and others — function like corks in a bottle: they keep the ice from flowing into the sea, which would raise sea levels by several feet.

The glacier, which is described in a paper published yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters, is called Pine Island Glacier. In 2015, a 224-square-mile iceberg broke off from the glacier. After studying satellite images before and after the event, researchers at Ohio State University found that in 2013, a rift formed at the base of the ice shelf, 20 miles inland. The rift worked its way up for two years until it caused the iceberg to break off.

Icebergs do separate from ice sheets in the Antarctic on a fairly regular basis. This one, though, is special. It confirmed what glaciologists have long been suspecting: that the ice shelf is weakening. But it also shows that the ice retreat is happening farther inland than scientists had previously observed.

Video  ➽  Ice break-off from Pine Island Glacier 2015


The 224-square-mile iceberg that broke off from the Pine Island Glacier in 2015.  GIF from Ohio State University video

“It’s generally accepted that it’s no longer a question of whether the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will melt, it’s a question of when,” study leader Ian Howat, associate professor of Earth sciences at Ohio State, said in a statement. If things continue the way they are, glaciers will keep melting, and West Antarctica will significantly collapse “in our lifetimes.”

In the case of the 2015 iceberg, researchers believe that the rift began deep down the ice shelf, where warming waters are eating away at the ice. That’s a new threat to the Antarctica ice sheet, where rifts usually form at the margins, not deep inland. Similar breakups had been observed in Greenland and the global consequences of melting ice in these regions are huge.

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. Previous papers have shown that the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is inevitable, and it could raise sea levels by as much as 10 feet. In the US, that would mean that cities like New York and Miami would go underwater.

>>> Acwareus Climate-Energy Solutions (ACES) comment: … together with tens of thousands of other coastal mega cities, towns and villages, paramount infrastructure, farming- and pasture lands, forests, water supplies, biotopes and whole ecosystems, and natural habitats to aquatic and terrestrial animals, and birds. The economical, ecological and social damages will be unmeasurable and unbearable, just as human and wildlife sufferings and death tolls, the irreversible multitudinous species extinction, millions of animal and plant species gone forever. Unless …

>>>  View it all in both of these of our blog posts  Zero options? Never.   and    Scenarios. and Implications.




(And so did New York & New Jersey in 2012, remember? — costing 65 billion USD)


Video  ➽  Hell Will Break Loose — Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, Superstorms

The reality of climate change David Puttnam TEDx Talks Dublin slide 2

Our Future, Our Choice, YOUR Choice . . .


“We’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change — and the last generation that can actually DO something about it” / Gov. Jay Inslee, Washington state

We humans are much rather part of a solution than part of a problem.

What about YOU ?  ^_^


Sea Level Rise  ngs-logo

Ocean levels are getting higher. Why is this happening, and what can we do to stem the tide?


Families in Kiribati, especially those new to the island nation, are often forced to live in marginal areas, where flooding from high tides is increasing.


Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth’s surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change:

  • Thermal Expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century’s rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.
  • Melting Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. In the winter, snows, primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in the ratio of runoff to ocean evaporation, causing sea levels to rise.
  • Ice Loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with the glaciers and ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland’s and West Antarctica’s ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.


When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surgesthat can strip away everything in their path.

In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.


Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and is likely to accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the degree to which they will rise is an inexact science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we can expect the oceans to rise between 11 and 38 inches (28 to 98 centimeters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, place sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London.


This Disastrous Trend Is Snowballing and It’s Ripping Away Our Food Choices

April 01, 2017.


The seed saving movement is growing. Communities are banding together to save and share heirloom and open pollination seeds that are in danger of disappearing off the face of the Earth as a result of industrialized agriculture and multinational corporations that control the majority of our seed supply.

The documentary “Open Sesame: The Story of Seeds,” by M. Sean Kaminsky seeks to inspire people about the importance of seed saving — and its urgency.1

When you save seeds, you’re joining a chain of farmers, gardeners and seed enthusiasts that dates back to the Stone Age — our civilization literally arose due to seed saving.

Early humans selected the best wild plants with which to feed themselves, and passed those varieties along to others by saving and sharing seeds.

Seeds are the foundation of life, from fruits and vegetables to grain and livestock feed — without them, we have no food. It’s estimated that upward of 90 percent of our caloric intake directly or indirectly comes from seeds.

Age-old heirloom varieties are disappearing at an alarming rate — 90 percent of the crop varieties grown 100 years ago are already gone. The Millennium Seed Bank Partnership estimates that 60,000 to 100,000 plant species are in danger of extinction.2

Why Seed Saving Is So Important

Four of the most important reasons to save seeds are the following:3

1. Seed Security: By saving your seeds, you control your seed and therefore your food supply — you aren’t depending on seed stores or catalogs for difficult to find seed.

Hundreds of excellent plant varieties have been discontinued as big corporations have consolidated the seed industry and focused on more profitable varieties. Half of the vegetables grown today have no commercial sources — you have to get them through seed trades.4

2.Regional Adaptation: Most commercially available seed has been selected because it performs fairly well across the entire country if given synthetic fertilizers.

But when you save seed from your own best performing plants, on your land and in your own ecosystem, you gradually develop varieties better adapted to your own soil, climate and growing conditions.

3.Consistent Quality: Large seed suppliers rarely “rogue” the fields to pull out inferior or off-type plants, so the open-pollinated (OP) seeds they sell have inferior specimens in the mix.

You can select your own seed for uniformity and quality. You can control the gene pool for optimal germination, ripening time, flavor, storage, disease resistance and color. After a few seasons, more and more of your plants will have all of your personally selected traits.

4.Preserving Your Heritage and Biodiversity: Today multinational corporations select seed varieties according to their own financial interests; they control 82 percent of the world’s seed market, which includes 75 percent of the vegetable seed market.

It’s up to small farmers and home gardeners to preserve thousands of years of biodiversity.

Understanding Open-Pollinated, Heirloom and Hybrid Seeds

As a gardener, one of your more important decisions is whether to choose open-pollinated, hybrid or heirloom seed varieties — but which are best?

According to Seed Savers,5 for seed saving purposes, the most significant distinction among these types is saving true-to-type seed from open-pollinated and heirloom varieties, and avoiding hybrids.

Open-pollination seeds are pollinated by insects, birds, humans, wind or other natural mechanisms. According to Seed Savers:6

“Because there are no restrictions on the flow of pollen between individuals, open-pollinated plants are more genetically diverse. This can cause a greater amount of variation within plant populations, which allows plants to slowly adapt to local growing conditions and climate year-to-year.

As long as pollen is not shared between different varieties within the same species, then the seed produced will remain true-to-type, year after year.”

An heirloom variety is a plant that has a history of being passed down multiple generations within a family or a community. An heirloom variety is by definition open-pollinated, but not all open-pollinated plants are heirlooms.

Hybridization is a controlled method of pollination in which the pollen of two different species or varieties is crossed (usually by human intervention, although it can happen in nature), usually from a desire to breed in a particular trait.

Hybrids are typically unstable and less vigorous, producing fewer of those desirable traits with each passing year. However, hybrid seeds can be stabilized by open-pollination — by growing, selecting and saving the seeds over many seasons.

Choosing open-pollinated and heirloom seeds helps conserve genetic diversity and prevents the loss of unique varieties, including the ones that contribute to our long-term survival because of special hardiness and disease-resistance traits.

Biodiversity is our only insurance in times of vulnerability, such as when facing climate change.

Our Loss of Seed Diversity Is Shocking

In 80 years (between 1903 and 1983), we lost 93 percent of the variety in our food seeds. According to Rural Advancement Foundation International:7

  • We went from 497 varieties of lettuce to 36
  • We went from 288 varieties of beets to 17
  • We went from 307 varieties of sweet corn to 12

Even the popular heirloom tomato has taken an enormous hit, having lost at least 80 percent of its diversity over the last century. Even more tragic is the fact that a lot of these precious plants are being replaced by patented genetically engineered (GE) varieties.

The National Geographic infographic below shows how many varieties of fruits and vegetables appear to be nearing extinction.8 This data is already more than 30 years old, so the statistics may be even more grim today.


The Disastrous Consequences of Patenting Life

Traditionally, seeds have been saved and shared between farmers from one season to the next. Farmers rarely ever had to buy new seed. Nature, when left alone, provides you with the means to propagate the next harvest in a never-ending cycle. Valuable heirlooms have been replaced by massive expanses of genetically engineered (GE) crops. According to the USDA, 94 percent of U.S. soy and 88 percent of U.S. corn are now genetically engineered (GE).

It’s estimated that, since 1970, 20,000 seed companies have been swallowed up by mega-corporations. In 2005, Monsanto bought the world’s largest fruit and vegetable seed company, Seminis, for $1.4 billion. Just four agrichemical companies now own 43 percent of the world’s commercial seed supply, and 10 multinational corporations hold 65 percent of global commercial seed for major crops.9

Many farmers are now dependent on patented GE seeds and must buy them every year from companies like Monsanto. Saving such seeds is illegal because it’s considered patent infringement.

Farmers don’t buy seed anymore — they essentially buy a license to use the seed for a short period of time — typically one season. It’s more of a lease, or a “technology use agreement.” For 200 years, the patenting of life was prohibited, especially with respect to foods. But all of that changed in 1978 with the first patent of a living organism, an oil-eating microbe, which opened the proverbial floodgates.

According to the film, one of Monsanto’s proxies has a patent claiming 463,173 separate plant genes! Patenting of life forms was never approved by Congress or the American public, but as far as the GMO industry is concerned, they own a gene wherever it ends up and however it gets there. The trail of destruction left by GE seeds isn’t limited to the West — Indian farmers have been coerced into using them, with completely disastrous consequences.

GE Seeds Responsible for 250,000 Farmer Suicides

More than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide over the past 16 years, since the introduction of GE seed. These crops have failed (especially Bt cotton), leaving them financially ruined. Bt cotton is much more expensive than traditional cotton seed, requires more water and pesticides, and has failed to produce the increased crop yields promised by Monsanto.

India’s government has largely abandoned small farmers, discontinuing support programs and failing to address factors such as lack of rural credit and access to irrigation, among others, and new government programs have barely scratched the surface of this crisis, which results in one farmer committing suicide every 30 minutes, typically by ingesting pesticides like Roundup.

On a side note, concerns over glyphosate’s toxicity are finally starting to be taken seriously. The U.S. EPA announced in 201510that U.S. regulators may start testing for glyphosate residues on food in the near future, but only a year later, in November 2016, the FDA announced that it was putting its testing “on hold” even though the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined that the active ingredient in Roundup is a “probable carcinogen.”

While thousands of foods are tested for about 400 different pesticides each year, glyphosate is not on that list simply because it’s been thought to be safe. A step in the right direction, however, is that in early 2017 a California court ruled that the state’s efforts to require warning labels about the cancer possibility could move forward.

While that’s good news, it’s worth noting that the EPA raised the allowable limits for glyphosate in food in 2013, and the allowable levels may be too high to protect human health, based on mounting research. Root and tuber vegetables (with the exception of sugar) got one of the largest boosts, with allowable residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm.

Meanwhile, malformations in frog and chicken embryos have been documented at 2.03 ppm of glyphosate.11 And, as reported by the Institute for Science in Society:12

“The amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops (except for canola and soy) went up from 20 ppm to 40 ppm, 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells.”

Video  ➽  The Twisted Truth About GMOs


Total Video Length: 50:49

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a serious threat to our environment and our health. Although the U.S. has the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new additives, the FDA has allowed GMOs to evade those laws, as Steven Druker explains in this recent interview.

The sole purported legal basis for the marketing of GE foods in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that they’re “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) — a claim that is actually fraudulent. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s scientists warned superiors about the extraordinary risks of GE foods — but their warnings were spurned and covered up.

According to the law, no GE food can qualify as GRAS unless there is overwhelming consensus about its safety within the scientific community, and that consensus cannot be based on hypotheses or speculation — it must be based on solid evidence. In the case of GE foods, there is no such evidence. FDA’s own files contain the admission that they didn’t have any technical evidence upon which to base their presumption that GE foods are GRAS.

On January 24, 2015, a statement signed by 300 scientists was published in a peer-reviewed journal,13 asserting that there is no scientific consensus about the safety of GE foods, which confirms that they are on the U.S. market illegally.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote, “There is more than a casual association between GE foods and adverse health effects.” They go on to cite specific scientific evidence pointing to potential organ damage from GE foods (liver, kidney, spleen and GI system), accelerated aging, immune dysregulation, infertility … and the list goes on and on.14

Support Seed Diversity by Ditching GE Food

As you often hear me say, one of your greatest powers is your pocketbook. You can take back control over our food supply with the choices you make about the foods you eat, the seeds you plant, and the products you use. Here are a few suggestions:

  1. Stop buying non-organic processed foods. Instead, build your diet around whole, unprocessed foods, especially raw fruits and vegetables, and healthy fats from coconut oil, avocados, organic pastured meat, dairy and eggs, and raw nuts
  2. Buy most of your foods from your local farmers markets and organic farms
  3. Cook most or all your meals at home using whole, organic ingredients
  4. Frequent restaurants that serve organic, cooked-from-scratch local food. Many restaurants, especially chain restaurants, use processed foods for their meals (Chipotlé is a rare exception)
  5. Buy only organic, open-pollinated and heirloom seeds for your garden, which applies to both decorative plants and edibles; they’re obtainable from seed swaps, seed libraries and exchanges (see next section for sources)
  6. Boycott all lawn and garden chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) unless they are “OMRI Approved,” which means they’re allowed in organic production. If you use a lawn service, make sure they’re using OMRI Approved products as well
  7. Join the Organic Consumers Association’s new campaign, “Buy Organic Brands that Support Your Right to Know”

Seed Saving Resources

If you want to begin saving your own seeds, there are four basic steps: Choosing the right plants, collecting their seeds, cleaning the seeds and storing them appropriately.15 Below are some excellent seed saving resources, as well as suggestions for where to purchase open-pollinated and heirloom seeds.

  • Seed to Seed: Seed Saving Techniques for Vegetable Gardeners,” by Suzanne Ashworth (March 2002) is an excellent and widely cited book about seed saving
  • Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA): National non-profit organization committed to protecting, promoting and developing the organic seed trade and its growers
  • Seed Savers Exchange: Organization whose mission is to promote saving and sharing of heirloom seeds and plants
  • SeedSave.org: Online seed school with free downloadable book about the basics of seed saving
  • Hudson Valley Seed Library: Featured in the movie, Hudson is much more than a library — it’s also a place where you can order heirloom seed
  • Mother Earth News articles16 about their picks for the top 15 vegetable seed companies

Why Independent Films Are So Important

Cinema plays an important role in how we think, how our opinions are formed, and how we view our ever-changing world. Independent film makers take huge risks and are often the main financial support behind bringing you cutting edge and riveting news through the eyes of experts and real life survivors.

They are not swayed by cinema or popular opinion, but are instead influenced by their dynamic surroundings and the evolution of change to bring you the facts at their own cost. We need independent film makers to continue to bring us the news that no one else is willing to face. Please show your support for these amazing artists for their hard work and efforts to bring us the facts by visiting their sites, sharing their information and purchasing their films.

I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about the producer, Sean Kaminsky, of Open Sesame. Through his hard work and dedication we are able to shine a light on the dangers and poisons that are hiding in our food and damaging our health. Thank you to Mr. Kaminsky for sharing with us.

Sean Poster

About the Director

I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about the director, Sean Kaminsky, from “Open Sesame: The Story of Seeds.” We sat down with Sean to learn a little more about what goes in to making these films. Thank you to Sean for sharing with us.

What was your inspiration for making this film?

When I told friends I wanted to make a short documentary about seeds back in 2009, I received lots of blank looks and polite nods. Many folks (myself included) were pretty disconnected from the source of our food. And back then I didn’t have a garden. That only came after the film! “Open Sesame” quickly grew into a full-length feature after I started to interview people and learned what was at stake.

I’d already worked on several environmentally themed projects including an HBO documentary on climate change and numerous shorts for Sundance Channel. I felt like I had a decent grasp of the primary environmental issues we faced.

So, I was stunned to learn about the seed crisis — but when I started the film few people were talking about the importance of seeds or how industrial farming, patents and GMOs threaten 12,000 years of our agricultural heritage. All those blank looks told me I was on the right track in telling a story that needed to get told.

What was your favorite part of making this film?

Making this film was an incredible adventure and it’s hard to choose one favorite. One favorite part was meeting numerous amazing individuals who have tremendous passion for seeds and want to help change our food system. Many of the people that I filmed with have since become friends.

I feel grateful to have been able to share their stories. Visiting Navdanya in India was an incredible experience and witnessing the love and care they gave seeds was something I worked hard to convey in the film.

Seed School was also a highlight since I learned a ton while shooting and still use many of the tips I learned in my own small garden when I plant. The editing process was also rewarding because that’s when I started to discover the threads that unite folks in the growing community seed movement. Amidst all the challenges, there are reasons for hope and optimism.

Where do the proceeds to your film go?

This film has been a passion project from start to finish without support from big media companies or distributors. Everyone who supports the film also supports sustainable indie filmmaking. A significant percentage of proceeds goes toward outreach and helping to make the film affordable for small community screenings. I also have another food-related film in the early stages of production. There are many challenges facing our food supply and more stories that need to be told!

Open Sesame Movie

Discover the Truth About GMO Foods – Get The Ultimate Guide to GMOs eBook for Free!

Due to the prevalence of GMO foods in the food industry, Dr. Mercola shares everything you need to know about these deceptive foods in his free eBook, The Ultimate Guide to GMOs.

Spare Yourself from Being Fooled by GMO Foods – Learn the Truth Behind GM Crops

With the advent of technology, scientists are continuously discovering methods to advance our food system. They’ve come up with outrageous ways of altering our food supply, and one of those is through the invention of GMO foods.

As the curiosity and concern of many people grow, they are now starting to ask: what is a GMO food?

GMO foods or genetically modified organisms are produced from the unusual combination and alteration of any organism’s genetic components. Once the seeds of any crop have been genetically engineered or modified, it promises to make every farmer’s dream to come true.

The big biotech companies that produce GMOs guarantee that GM crops or seeds will result in abundant harvest and less use of pesticides and herbicides. They also said that foods produced from GMO crops are generally safe and can sustain global food supply.

But do GMOs live up to their promise? Are GMO foods really the answer to solving hunger around the world?

Find out the truth and repercussions brought by GMOs in our food industry with my free eBook, The Ultimate Guide to GMOs. In it, I will share to you my discoveries about the dangers lurking behind the use of GM crops.

Are You Serving Genetically Modified Foods to Your Family?

If you’re a complacent shopper, you might be picking whatever food is on the grocery shelf. You might be perfectly satisfied that the food industry is giving you the food, thinking that it’s got your best interests in mind.

But you’re certainly wrong – all they have in mind is how much profit genetically modified foods will bring into their pockets.

Some of the most cultivated GM crops today include:

  • GM corn. Monsanto’s Bt corn produces its own pesticide that kills insects. About 85 percent of corns planted in the country are genetically modified.
  • GM soybean. It is estimated that 91 percent of soybeans currently available are genetically engineered.
  • GM cotton. About 88 percent of the cotton industry has been genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide.

Aside from these, there are many other crops and seeds that are genetically engineered. And you might be purchasing them unknowingly. Learn more about them in my latest eBook, The Ultimate Guide to GMOs, where I reveal various genetically modified foods that you must veer away from.

Support GMO Labeling and Know What You Are Eating

More than 80 percent of processed foods today contain genetically engineered ingredients. Despite the fact that genetically modified foods are now widely prevalent in the food industry, consumers like you can still do something to change its course by carefully choosing and buying organic foods.

That’s what GMO labeling is all about. GMO labeling aims to give you the freedom to choose the food you’re buying. It is very important that consumers are given the right to know if the food they’re purchasing contains genetically engineered ingredients.

However, there are many forces who greatly oppose GMO labeling — giant food and biotech businesses that are willing to shell out huge amounts of cash just to continue and ensure that they still reign over the grocery shelves. Read my FREE eBook, The Ultimate Guide to GMOs, and you will be surprised to know who are the companies who are willing to put you at risk in exchange for profits.

Educate yourself and your loved ones on the nitty-gritty about GMOs. Discover which foods are truly healthy for you and get rid of the ones that are slowly destroying your body. Read this eBook today!


How the FDA Supports Big Food Companies in Selling More Junk Food

Video  ➽  How the FDA Supports Big Food Companies in Selling More Junk Food

Video Transcript: How the FDA Supports Big Food Companies in Selling More Junk Food

Ty Bollinger: I’m here with Rob Verkerk with the Alliance for National Health International [ANH]. Rob, thank you for being with us tonight.

Dr. Robert Verkerk: Hey, it’s fantastic to be with you too.

Ty Bollinger: And what I want to do is get you, first of all, to tell our listeners exactly who you are and what you’re doing with the ANH and then I’ve got a couple other questions for you. So first of all, just kind of give us a background on you.

Dr. Robert Verkerk: ANH is all about working very hard to protect sovereignty over our bodies in order to be able to manage our health, have freedom of choice, ensure that there is informed choice to make those choices, and allow people to manage their health in the way that we have already been doing for many hundreds of thousands of years.

And of course, modern science comes along now and, coupled with what we already know from traditional systems, most of the solutions to most of the big diseases that are out there that are creating a huge burden on healthcare systems around the world, the information is available.

But it’s not getting to people. There’s a whole regulatory movement that is being developed by very large corporations in cahoots with governments, that is increasingly impinging our ability to choose products that can really transform lives, transform the quality of lives, and eliminate the burden of disease that is really crippling society today.

Ty Bollinger: So you mentioned regulatory agencies. Now here in the United States we think of the FDA. But you’re working with ANH International. Is the FDA the only regulatory agency that we need to worry about?

Dr. Robert Verkerk: Not at all. The FDA exists in different forms in all other countries.

In some cases you have authorities like the FDA that deal both with food and with drugs. In other parts of the world you’ve got specific food authorities and other drug authorities that are somewhat separated.

The difficulty when you have the same people dealing both with food and drugs or sharing offices within similar buildings, is that they inevitably develop a system of regulation that works for the corporations that supply the largest amount of money to those governments.

These people are bureaucrats so they’re not necessarily looking at the big picture. They’re certainly not looking at how they can resolve the disease burden in any particular country or part of the world. And the system, the intricate system that is being developed by these authorities working globally, these groups and bureaucrats working globally is already being mapped out.

If we look say at the development over the last 40 years of the Codex Alimentarius, this is how corporations and governments have come together in order to manage the global food trade.

The increasing availability of processed foods, or preserved foods, or foods that have been irradiated, or that have relatively high levels of pesticide residuesall of that has been agreed at an international level through Codex.


And it has been 100 percent supported by the FDA and also by the European Commission that interestingly stands as a body that represents the trading block of the 28 member states that comprises Europe. Which actually supports now our population of close to half a billion people.

And again, in this system at Codex there is a consensus approach to decision making and there are a number of countries such as the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia, and even New Zealand that play a dominant role. If a smaller country, say a sub-Saharan African nation disagrees with any of these issues they tend to be quashed.

As a result you get a system of trade that is meant to be all about free trade, but it’s actually expanding trade in products that — particularly food products — that are right at the nub of the key health problems that we have.

So if we look at the prevalence of American-style foods that are maybe typified by say McDonald’s or other processed foods. Or the products of Pepsi, for example, or Coca-Cola, of which there are many associated products, or products from Nestle that cover many, many different brands… these are the companies that play the dominant roleso that their products can be available in more or less the same form in supermarkets all over the world.

Want to be notified when other awesome interviews or articles are added? Click here for our free weekly digest. You’ll be glad you did.


If Cancer Scares You, Do Not Miss This…

See the Truth About Cancer here.

Over 20,000 people die each day from cancer. So if it scares you, that’s understandable.

However… whether you’re trying to avoid cancer or beat it if you’ve got it, there is one very powerful antidote to the fear, and to the disease itself: knowledge.

In “The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest” you’ll discover the most powerful ways to prevent, treat, heal from, and beat the disease. Though you haven’t heard of most of these ways, you deserve to, so…

Click here now to conquer the fear, and find out what you really need to know.

About Dr. Robert Verkerk, Ph.D

Robert is an internationally acclaimed scientist with over 25 years experience in the field of agricultural and healthcare sustainability, having worked in academia, industry and the not-for-profit sector. He has worked extensively in Africa, Asia, Australia, the Americas as well as Europe.After leaving Imperial College London in 2002, he founded the Alliance for Natural Health, which he has headed since. His background, as a scientist, campaigner and visionary, hold him in good stead for his dual role as Executive & Scientific Director of ANH-Intl as well as its regional European office.


Documentary Sheds Light on Toxic Household Products

April 08, 2017


Story at-a-glance

  • U.S. manufacturers of baby-care, household and personal care products are not required to fully disclose toxic ingredients, even if those ingredients could be hazardous to your health
  • The word “fragrance” is a catch-all term that refers not to a single ingredient but rather one or more of nearly 3,000 synthetic chemicals that may damage your health
  • U.S. trade organizations, such as the American Chemistry Council, spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to aggressively back manufacturers in a joint effort to conceal toxic ingredients

A family-oriented documentary called “Stink!”1 shines a bright light on the unregulated use of toxic chemicals in U.S. consumer products, from baby wipes and shampoo to floor cleaners and laundry detergents.

The idea for the film originated from director Jon Whelan’s experience in tracking down the source of a strong chemical odor that wafted off new pajamas he’d purchased for his two young daughters.

After discovering the toxic stench was a trade secret held by the parent company of popular American tween store Justice, Whelan began investigating the fragrance industry, which he suggests is valued at $100 billion.

What Whelan found is that manufacturers, with the aggressive backing of the chemical industry, routinely conceal thousands of potentially toxic ingredients in the baby care, household and personal care products you and your family use every day.

They do so by using the term “fragrance,” which is entirely free of government oversight and safety regulations.2

Lack of regulation means that when you see the word fragrance on product labels, it does not refer to a single ingredient, but likely dozens of toxic chemicals in combination.

For example, S.C. Johnson’s fresh citrus blossom-scented Glade PlugIns oil refill contains a whopping 60 chemical components, which are encompassed under a single word on the product label: fragrance.

According to the Geneva-based International Fragrance Association (IFRA), the self-regulating body of the global fragrance industry, about 3,000 specific chemicals fall under the term fragrance.3

When you purchase a product that lists fragrance as one of the ingredients, you have no way of knowing how many chemicals reside within, or how those chemicals might interact with each other. Many of the chemicals are synthetic — often petroleum based — and increasingly linked to chronic health conditions.

Safety and Regulation of US Consumer Goods Is Weak

You may be surprised to know that legislation put in place in the U.S. in 1976 — a measure called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — has perhaps done more harm than good in terms of regulating the chemicals used in products that you use daily.

Notably, TSCA grandfathered in some 80,000 chemicals that are ready available and can be easily incorporated into all kinds of consumer products manufactured and sold in the U.S.

As such, these chemicals bypass safety testing and remain free of federal government regulation and oversight. Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics comments:4

“The chemical industry has gotten away with producing billions of tons of chemicals without doing safety studies, putting them out into the environment … and into products that are … in our homes. Basically we are living in a ‘toxic soup,’ and it’s a giant experiment on human health.”

It may surprise you to learn that U.S. regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration have limited authority to regulate manufacturers who add toxic ingredients to their products.

“I think that most people’s perception is that somewhere, someone is testing all the products,” says Whelan.5 But, they’re not.

This lack of oversight allows manufacturers of baby-care, household and personal-care products — with the support of powerful and well-funded trade associations — to add thousands of toxic chemicals to products you use every day. Whelan states:

“The American Chemistry Council is the most powerful trade association anywhere, and it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to influence public opinion, fund political campaigns and underwrite aggressive lobbying efforts.

Their goal is to avoid regulation that would impact profits of the largest chemical companies in the world, such as BASF, ConAgra Foods, Dow, DuPont, General Mills, Monsanto, Nestle, Pepsico and Unilever.”

Due to the tremendous amount of chemicals coming at you from multiple sources, some of the fragrances that you are exposed to daily may be damaging your health and putting you at risk for serious illness.

The ‘Fragrance Loophole’ and Why Should It Concern You

Jane Houlihan, vice president of research for the Environmental Working Group (EWG), notes that the lack of U.S. government oversight with respect to added chemicals in consumer products is referred to as the “fragrance loophole:”6

“One big loophole in the labeling law is “fragrance.” Manufacturers don’t have to list their ingredients. So whether you hold a perfume, cologne, shampoo or shaving cream — whatever the product is — normally the fragrance components aren’t disclosed.

There can literally be a mixture of hundreds of different chemicals hidden in that one ingredient.”

Adds Green Living Expert Alexandra Zissu, “You’re eating fragrance, wearing fragrance, washing your hands with fragrance and even blowing your nose with fragrance.”7

Among the undisclosed ingredients are several known or suspected allergens, carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, environmental pollutants, neurotoxic chemicals and respiratory irritants.

Because these toxins are responsible for the spike in chronic diseases from asthma and birth defects to infertility and cancer, “The sooner you get this stuff out of your life, the better,” says Zissu.8

Worse, due to the lack of product testing and safety measures, the interaction of fragrance chemicals across multiple products cannot be known. No one stops to ask what kind of interaction might take place when chemicals from your body spray interact with your acne cream.

By the way, did you know the average American female uses up to 20 products, and the average male up to 10 products, per day that have hidden ingredients linked to a variety of adverse health issues?9

Tests conducted by the EWG revealed the average fragrance product contains at least 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label.10 This secrecy and lack of transparency make it impossible for you to make an informed choice about the products you buy.

Transparency in Labeling Is Needed to Rein in Use of Toxic Chemicals

Whelan provides common-sense advice for addressing the U.S. system with respect to your everyday products and the handling of fragrance:11

“First, we need to get the chemicals of greatest concern off the market. This is no small task, because powerful industry lobbyists oppose regulating chemicals, even substances that cause cancer, birth defects or disrupt hormones. Updating TSCA so federal agencies have power to regulate toxic chemicals is key.

Next, we need full chemical disclosure on labels. If companies had to disclose all chemicals in their products, they’d make better choices about the chemicals they sold and consumers would be empowered to make informed choices about what they bought. Transparency works.”

Jeffrey Hollender, co-founder of Seventh Generation, suggests manufacturers are purposely withholding ingredient lists to protect their interests:12

“The reason most cleaning and personal care products don’t list all of the ingredients is because the manufacturer doesn’t want you to know what’s in there. They’re scared of consumers learning that they’re purchasing a product that has a toxic or carcinogenic ingredient. They’re trying to avoid the consumer backlash that would come if they were transparent.”

US Versus European Chemical Regulations

The U.S. system for handling chemicals with respect to consumer products is broken Hollender, added:13

“The question is how many people have to die? How many people have to get sick before the proof becomes overwhelming and inescapable? What we need is a precautionary approach. You must prove the product’s safe. You must prove the chemical’s safe. And until that’s proven, the product should not be allowed in the store, and the chemical should not be allowed in the product.”

Whelan agrees and suggests America could learn something from Europe, where tougher standards are in place to protect human health:14

“The big philosophical difference between how products and chemicals are regulated in Europe versus the U.S. is interesting. In Europe, chemicals are guilty until proven innocent. The precautionary principle says that if we suspect something may be harmful, well then let’s not use it. They use common sense. In the U.S., it’s the exact opposite. Chemicals are innocent until proven guilty, yet it’s virtually impossible to prove guilt.”

According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics,15 the European Union Cosmetics Directive, which was adopted in January 2003 and revised in 2013, bans 1,328 chemicals from cosmetics that are known or suspected to cause birth defects, cancer, genetic mutation or reproductive harm. To date, the FDA has banned only 11 chemicals from cosmetics in the U.S.

Video  ➽  The Story of Cosmetics (2010)


Why Is the Fragrance Industry Against Safety Regulations?

Like the secret formula for Coca-Cola and Colonel Sander’s secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken, the fragrance industry has been guarding its carefully kept secrets for decades. As such, a certain air of mystery has resulted. Says fragrance consultant Steve Herman:16

“The perfume industry has been trying to maintain a certain mystique, because fragrance has an allure of mystery, romance and creativity about it. If we transform it into a chemical company with ingredient disclosure — all of that mystique would be gone.”

Whelan suggests the huge number of chemicals needing to be tested is very likely the most discouraging factor related to safeguarding consumer products:17

“There are over 80,000 chemicals in use today. While most of them are probably safe, it takes time and money to test them. Industry doesn’t want to know which are harmful because it would mean reformulating many of their products, which would require additional money.

Furthermore, by disclosing chemicals on the label, particularly if one is a potential carcinogen, companies could be liable, which they also do not want. Industry wants it both ways. They don’t want chemicals proven safe, and they don’t want consumers to have full disclosure.”

Because the U.S. federal government has traditionally taken a passive role in terms of regulating the addition of chemicals in consumer products, individual states, such as California, have taken action on their own. California’s well known Proposition 65, or Prop 65,18 was enacted in 1986. Eleanne van Vliet, director of toxic chemical research for As You Sow, sees value in state-enacted regulations:19

“Prop 65 prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing consumers to chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. Companies have to either reformulate the product to use less toxic ingredients or remove the product from the market completely.”

EWG Helps You Identify Toxic Ingredients You Should Avoid

Judi Shils, executive director of Teens Turning Green, underscores the importance of taking an active role in evaluating the personal-care products you use every day.20 “Shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, toothpaste, moisturizer, hand sanitizer — each one of those products has about 15 synthetic chemicals in it, so your body’s burden is enormous. You’re just dumping all this toxic stuff into your bloodstream!”

To help you identify harmful ingredients and make buying choices that support your health and well-being, the EWG provided the following list of toxins to AVOID in personal-care products manufactured for the U.S. market:21

For your body:

  • Fragrance
  • Rentinyl palmitate or other retinoids in daytime skin products
  • Triclocarban in bar soap
  • Triclosan in liquid soap (banned in 2016 by the FDA)
For your hair:

  • DMDM hydantoin
  • Fragrance
  • Parabens: propyl, isopropyl, butyl and isobutyl
  • PEG, ceteareth and polyethylene
For your nails:

  • Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)
  • Formaldehyde or formalin
  • Toluene

If you want to go further in your exploration of potentially harmful ingredients, check out EWG’s Skin Deep® database,22 where you can research the personal care products you use and identify less toxic options. EWG also maintains a Guide to Healthy Cleaning,23 which informs you about safe alternatives for household-cleaning products.

Non-Toxic Fragrances Are Available

Avoiding toxic fragrance does not mean that you must forgo all pleasant scents in your home or personal-care products, because truly natural options are available. Organic essential oils are one option, and you can even add them to your own non-fragranced products, such as facial moisturizers or hand lotion. Organic essential oils and isolates come from botanical ingredients such as bark, flowers, fruits, leaves, seeds, wood and other 100 percent natural raw materials.

Though they may cost more, and the scent may last only a couple of hours after each application, organic essential oils won’t pose the health risks of synthetic fragrances. (It’s still possible to have sensitivities to natural scents so take care with them around individuals who may not be able to tolerate them.)

Of course, you have the option of avoiding fragrance entirely. In fact, a woman’s natural scent has been found to be more seductive than perfume,24 scoring another point for the power of nature!

LCSA Law Implemented, EPA Finally Empowered to Review Chemicals

In June, 2016, U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA) to reform TSCA. Although the changes will likely be slow, LCSA introduces improvements such as:25

  • Mandating the EPA to evaluate existing chemicals under enforceable deadlines
  • Requiring all chemicals used in commerce to undergo risk-based reviews
  • Providing increased public transparency with respect to chemicals
  • Funding the EPA consistently so it can carry out its responsibilities under the new law

On the downside, the LCSA makes it more difficult for states to regulate chemicals once the EPA has evaluated them, and prohibits states from taking action against any chemical the EPA has declared “high priority” for EPA investigation. Once the EPA declares a chemical safe for a specific use or condition, states are permanently preempted from taking any action against it.26

In December 2016, the EPA announced the first 10 chemicals it will review under LCSA, as highlighted by the EWG:27 1,4-dioxane, 1-bromopropane, asbestos, carbon tetrachloride, HBCD (cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster), methylene chloride, NMP (n-methylpyrrolidone), PERC (tetrachloroethylene), pigment violet 29 and TCE (trichloroethylene). Several of the 10 are suspected to be possible human carcinogens.

While you may think asbestos was banned many years ago, the U.S. still imports, uses and sells asbestos and asbestos products for use in automotive, flooring and roofing products, even though inhalation or ingestion of asbestos fibers is known to cause lung cancer. Clearly, the EPA has a lot more work to do to safeguard your health and mine.

What You Can Do to Help Close the ‘Fragrance Loophole’

Based on feedback from consumers like you, and the diligence of consumer-advocacy organizations like EWG, manufacturers and retailers are beginning to realize the need for change. U.S.-based companies such as Procter & Gamble (P&G),28 S.C. Johnson29and Unilever,30 as well as retailers like Target31 have taken steps to become more transparent with ingredient lists.

Some steps are small, such as P&G’s move to provide two lists on its website32 of fragrance chemicals the company is currently using, and those no longer in use in any of its brands. While that sounds positive, P&G still has access to more than 2,800 other fragrance chemicals that would not have to be disclosed on product labels.

Other steps are bigger, such as Target’s decision33 to require full ingredient disclosure by 2020 for all baby care, household and personal care products, as well as a ban on formaldehyde, parabens and phthalates in those products. Furthermore, by 2022, Target wants to remove flame retardants and perfluorinated chemicals from all its textiles.

If you want to go to the next level with respect to taking a stand against the continued use and abuse of fragrance in consumer products, below are some tips on how you can get started:34

Choose products that disclose a complete list of ingredients
Select “fragrance free” products instead of “unscented” ones because unscented products may use fragrance to mask odors
Be wary of “greenwashing” related to the use of terms such as “natural” or “organic” for personal care products because they are unregulated and can be used regardless of product contents
Research the product’s ingredients prior to purchase by perusing the EWG’s Skin Deep database and/or other sources35
Opt for products using organic essential oils instead of synthetic scents
Educate your children and make them aware of safer choices for the products they use daily
Ask the company for specific details about the products you like and find out if they are safe
Vote with your dollars and stop buying products that you know are unsafe
Demand action by telling manufacturers and retailers, as well as your state and federal legislators, that you support the full disclosure of ingredients for household and personal-care products and want safer alternatives

About the Director

Jon Whelan is the director of “Stink!” — an off-beat documentary about Whelan’s tenacious quest to uncover the source of a chemical scent in a pair of his daughter’s pajamas. Like most Americans, Whelan believed that if a product was on the store shelf then it must be safe.

Through his investigation, Whelan discovers a culture of secrecy surrounding carcinogens in everyday consumer products that begins in corporate board rooms and extends all the way to the halls of Congress.

A former co-CEO of Afternic.com, an internet/media start-up adviser and a founding member of the New York Angels, Whelan currently advocates for truthful product labeling and is a full-time parent of two young daughters. We sat down with Jon to learn a little more about what goes in to making these films. Thank you to Jon for sharing with us.

What was your inspiration for making this film?

I was inspired, personally, by my wife and daughters (you’ll need to watch the film to see why). Professionally, I was motivated to find out how it’s possible that companies in America are allowed to use harmful chemicals in everyday consumer products and not disclose it to their customers. As my grandmother used to tell me, “The truth is stranger than fiction.”

What was your favorite part of making this film?

Learning how the “system” works (or in this case doesn’t work) and connecting the dots. Once you know, you look at things through a different lens, and then you’re left with two choices: Help fix what’s broken or live with the status quo. I’m an optimist and I think that this is a solvable problem.

Where do the proceeds to your film go?

Stink!” is a passion project. I definitely couldn’t justify four years of my life and spend a fortune on bringing this project to fruition if profit were the motive. Individuals can stream “Stink!” free at StinkMovie.com or host a free screening. I hope people take advantage of the offer.


City of burning lakes: experts fear Bangalore will be uninhabitable by 2025

The illegal dumping of waste mixed with mass untreated sewage in India’s Silicon Valley is creating a water crisis which threatens residents’ health – and is causing the city’s famous lakes to catch fire


Bellandur lake, the city’s largest body of water covered in a thick layer of vegetation, burned for hours on the evening of 16 February 2017. Photograph: Aaditya Sood

On the evening of Thursday 16 February, residents in the south-east part of Bangalore noticed huge plumes of smoke rising into the sky. The smoke was coming from the middle of Bellandur Lake – the biggest lake in the city at a little over 890 acres. They realised the seemingly impossible had happened: the lake had caught fire. Even fire fighters wondered how a blaze in water could be put out.

The fire in the lake burned for 12 hours and left behind a sinister black patch in the centre, according to some eye-witness accounts.

This is the new story of Bangalore – state capital, India’s Silicon Valley, and once upon a time, the “city of lakes”. The reasons why these lakes are able to catch fire begin to explain why scientists at the influential Indian Institute of Science believe Bangalore will be “unliveable” in a few years’ time.

A lethal mix of factors create an environment that merely requires the slightest of triggers for lakes to go up in flames. Untreated effluents pour into the waters from the many industries and homes on its banks, illegal waste disposal takes place on a large scale – often including rubbish which is set on fire – and invasive weeds cover large swathes of the lake in a thick green canopy.

The latest incident is not the first time the lake has caught fire; it happened in May 2015. A few days later, it was in the news again for being covered in snow-like froth, which began to swirl up in the summer wind, engulfing passers-by. The froth was the result of chemical waste dumped in the lake, and was toxic enough to crack windshields, wear the paint off car hoods and exacerbate the severe respiratory issues that have plagued citizens in recent years.

Pedestrians cover their noses as they cross a bridge over a frothing canal, which once carried water from Bellandur Lake to Varthur Lake, in east Bangalore in 2015.
Pedestrians cross a bridge over a frothing canal leading to Bellandur Lake in 2015. Photograph: Manjunath Kiran/AFP/Getty Images

Dr TV Ramachandra, coordinator of the Energy and Wetlands Research Group at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), has been studying the lakes in Bangalore, especially Bellandur and Varthur, for over two decades. He explains that an estimated 400-600 million litres of untreated sewage is let into the lake catchment every day, creating a toxic environment fertile for disasters like the fires and foam.

“The city overall generates between 1,400 and 1,600m litres per day of untreated sewage,” he says. “20-30m litres per day is generated from the apartments in the vicinity of Bellandur Lake. There are several invasive species like water hyacinths growing in the lake, thick enough to walk on. People dump solid waste on top of it. Because of the thickness, it creates an anaerobic environment in the water below, where methane is formed. It creates an ideal environment for catching fire.”

He believes there are too many agencies governing the lake, so they all blame each other for such incidents. “The Bangalore water supply and sewerage board should be held responsible for letting the untreated sewage into the water,” he says, adding that the onus should also be placed on the Karnataka state pollution control board for not regulating industries that have been draining their untreated sewage into the lake.

Although the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act require action to be taken over such matters, the government has mostly remained silent, while its departments have been passing the buck around. The National Green Tribunal has issued notices to all the agencies involved.

Long before it began its slow and painful death, Bellandur Lake was part of a clever water and irrigation system devised by the founders of Bangalore in the 1600s, giving it the “city of lakes” moniker. The streams formed at the top of surrounding valleys were dammed into man-made lakes by constructing bunds. Each of these lakes would harvest rainwater from its catchments and the surplus would flow downstream, spilling into the next lake in the cascade via storm water drains or raja kaluves. The bodies of water would in turn serve the needs of the population.

An woman walks past contaminated water at a landfill on the outskirts of Bangalore in 2015.
A woman walks past contaminated water at a landfill on the outskirts of Bangalore. Photograph: Jagadeesg Nv/EPA

In the 1970s, there were still 285 lakes in the city, making it self-sufficient in its water needs. Today, however, there are just 194 lakes, and the large majority of them are sewage-fed. The rest have been lost to encroachments – by the Bangalore Development Authority, private real estate developers and illegal builders – to cater to the booming housing needs of a city of 10 million.

Bangalore has been subject to unchecked urbanisation in the wake of the IT sector-fuelled economic boom of the late 1990s. The many software companies that sprung up during the dotcom boom attracted hundreds of thousands of skilled IT professionals from across the country, with thousands more people moving from villages and small towns to the city in search of work.

According to studies by the IISc, rapid urbanisation and expansion between 1973 and 2016 caused a 1005% increase in paved surfaces and decline of 88% in the city’s vegetation, while water bodies declined by 85% between 2000 and 2014.

The rise of the IT sector has also created the problem of e-waste in the city: a 2013 report estimated that Bangalore produces 20,000 tonnes of e-waste per year. Although a formal recycling system for e-waste was set up, 90% of it is dealt with through the informal sector, which is harder to monitor. Unaware of the necessary safety measures, some incinerate the e-waste, releasing lead, mercury and other toxins into the air – and dump the rest, allowing pollutants to infiltrate the groundwater.

Dead fish washed up onto the banks of Ulsoor Lake in Bangalore, India, 08 March 2016.
Dead fish washed up on the banks of Ulsoor Lake in 2016. Photograph: Jagadeesg Nv/EPA

If one lake habitually catches fire, then another throws up thousands of dead fish every other summer. Ulsoor Lake, which doubles up as a picnic spot with boat rides and snack vendors on its banks, saw dead fish floating on its waters last year owing to the pollution caused by untreated sewage and consequent depletion of dissolved oxygen.

The water pollution in Bangalore poses a serious threat to residents’ health and creates a chronic shortage of clean water for people to use. All in all, experts predict a severe water crisis which will make Bangalore uninhabitable by 2025, with residents potentially having to be evacuated.

In the aftermath of the latest fire, I spoke to Aaditya Sood, an IT professional who watched the flames from his 10th floor balcony. He said he had seen the lake being “choked” in the seven or eight years he has lived there. “I have two kids and respiratory issues are a problem,” he says. The toxins from the lake get into the air, according to Ramachandra, noting that the cases of lung-related medical conditions have increased drastically in the city recently.

Another resident, Vandana Sinha, who works for a consultancy firm, says the smoke from the fire almost immediately caused itchiness at the base of her throat. She had heard that seven to eight trucks worth of garbage was being dumped into the lake every night, adding to the lethal combination of pollutants in the waters.

Report after report by expert committees have recommended several short and long term measures for rescuing the city’s lakes. Stopping the dumping of garbage, treating sewage water before it is allowed into the lakes, checking encroachments and slowing the development agenda are top of the list.

In the next three years, if the same rate of development continues, the built up area in Bangalore is expected to increase from 77% to 93%, with a vegetation cover of a mere 3%. Ramachandra is determined to get the bureaucracy to act before it is too late. While the city may not fully cease to exist, without drastic improvement the other possibilities still sound impossibly grim.

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter and Facebook to join the discussion, and explore our archive here






Facts. non-Alternative.

“We’re running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe.”
— Elon Musk/ USA Today, April 17, 2013.

This post exhibits disruptive, viral-checked Graphics speaking thousands of words each. Unmodified and non-Alternative, official and always referenced Facts. Let us all help put the Powers and Arts of Truth back where it belongs — in the hands and heads of us Caring, Common People — in Altruistic Togetherness against the Powers and Arts of Falsehood and Deception dwelling in the hands and heads of Evil and Expedience.

Carbon is Energy – in any compound!
We should recycle and make fuel of it.

This post is one of twelve in this blog written by us at ACES – Acwareus Climate-Energy Solutions.
You’ll find links to all the others for browsing  at the bottom of this page.

Our business statement of purpose is:

Leasing out Software for Elaborating Catalysts in producing clean cheap Fuels out of iteratively Recycled GreenHouse Gases by means of Artificial PhotoSynthesis.

Our blog being titled “No to Climate ignorance & insouciance, disregard & denial!“, appropriately for this post might we add also “and stupidity” — read on and it’ll make sense.

This post, as opposed to most of our other posts in this blog, forms no verbally back boned discourse other than in the adherent comments of the graphics. The back bone instead sits in our eye-opener graphics pick, their ordered sequential affinity and adherent disruptive comments. “A picture is worth a thousand words” the idiom goes, and we’re happy about that, saving us a lot of time 🙂

For current on-site information from where each image originates, click the attached link underneath. Image subtexts are (with few exceptions) entirely our own edited compilation. Any image may have a different accompanying text at its site of origin, however never essentially contradictory to our own, and our own texts are never deliberately sugarcoated or additionally sweetened to deliver an unmotivatedly modified or strengthened flavor of significance or implication — but if so, we always present information motivating any such modification to the reader. Some facts or comments may recur on multiple images, but where so in a different or complementary context.

Light-blue, underlined text inside comments (along with underneath-image sublinks) are clickable source origins or [a] mere example[s] thereof. All clickable links open up a new browser tab/window (either of, depending on Your browser settings), leaving the tab you came from open and unchanged on revisit.

OK then, Ready? – Set – Enjoy  the Expertainment:

Graph 1.  Historic 2014 and projected 2040 Global electricity generation by source.
Global electricity production (NB excluding heating, transport, industry etc) forecast for year 2040 compared to 2014, exhibiting that Gas based will INCREASE by 75% (5130 -> 9000 TWh) and Coal based by 23% (9630 -> 11870 TWh), whereas Oil based will DECREASE by 51% (1030 -> 500 TWh) — implying a Fossil based total INCREASE by 35% (15790 -> 21370 TWh).

comment: Renewables based electricity production (capacity!!*) in 2014 was 5430 TWh, 34% compared to Fossil (Nuclear thus unaccounted), or 22.9% of TOTAL el. prod (Nuclear accounted). Forecast for 2040 is Renewables 13430/21370 compared to Fossil = 63%, or 34.1% of TOTAL el. prod (Nuclear accounted). This may seem encouraging at first sight, even more when adding the Nuclear power non-Fossil portion (though also non-Renewable) to the comparison with Fossil, but the figures that matter to our climate and the climatic warming effects is NOT the production share of Renewables AS LONG AS SIMULTANEOUSLY the atmosphere takes in such a TREMENDOUS INCREASE of Carbondioxide CO2, plus leaked Methane CH4 and Nitrousoxide N2O, as is forecast for (the years ahead leading up to) 2040. This graph clearly exhibits that IT DOES NOT MATTER if we deploy NO MATTER HOW MUCH MORE Renewables based electricity production (plus heating and transport energy etc) on our planet as long as the consumption and hence waste gas exhausts of Fossil greenhouse gases is allowed to INCREASE WITH NO ATTENDING TO IT** whatsoever, exacerbating the Climatic Effects acutely. EVER MORE SO when taking into account the above unaccounted Carbondioxide CO2, Methane CH4 and Nitrousoxide N2O (view Graph 5 below) emissions from the [non-electricity producing] entire industry sector, 1.9 billion road vehicles (2.6 billion forecast for 2035), rail, air & marine transportation, cement manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, deforestation, cattle breeding, etc (view Graph 4 below). COMBINED!
[*  Renewables’ capacity means output under the most optimal circumstances: For solar power when the sun is up and unclouded, the hours between just before noon and just after noon yielding a substantial output, other daylight hours negligible, nighttime Zero. For wind power when the wind is blowing, not too little, not too much, neither too gusty nor changing directions intermittently. Also, to sun and wind power there is the unsatisfied need for storing unconsumed energy until it is needed, i.e. until the electric grid is capable of taking in its contribution and enough consumers are capable of making use of it, AND i.e. also for feeding out power (any at all) to that grid during the long Dark/low Sunlight and Zero-Wind hours, respectively. What falls short of the requirements today is the absence or shortage of energy storage accumulators, battery packs, super-capacitors etc. Until the storage cogwheel gets fitted into the picture, these energy sources will only play a wayward role in our pursuit for a stable Renewables power supply grid!!
➽  ALSO, WORTH EMPHASIZING REPEATEDLY (not least to the fan club of Renewables-of-present-state minded) are the following facts: In 2013, Renewables supplied the world with 21.7% of its electricity, according to BP. Take out hydro (water) power and they supplied the world with only 5.3% electricity. Then take out other Renewables such as biomass and geothermal and the percentage falls to 3.3% (output capacity). This negligible figure represents the implemented global solar and wind electricity production combined! And as said above, a figure even only a fraction thereof, since it furthermore represents the optimal wish-list for solar & wind capacity that would come into play only in ABSURD 24/7 cloudless-sky-sunshine AND 24/7 perfect-wind-conditions twin COINCIDENTAL scenarios. Nevertheless, these are the expectations, clad in counterfeit concealed statistics, that we’re fed to assimilate by those enriched and applauded (often low-endowed) confidence-trickster con artists (many of whom sadly are Environmental Department ministry and governmental officials, and celebrated environmentalists). People are fed the sugarcoated notion that solar and wind power and electric cars are all the tricks we need for turning the tide of aggregating atmospheric waste, and all too many swallow this rod, line and sinker (insouciant of the car’s charge electricity production type origin — probably a coal fired plant if in China, India or the US). While as a matter of fact there are hardly any more insignificantSavers” to be found!

Q: Anybody outside the fan-club-of-present-state now who don’t comprehend that solar & wind (notably wind) are corrupt-or-ignorant politician + solar/wind industry tycoon induced initiatives (clad in “Earth Saver” mantles) that only continue to lead us astray and nowhere except ever further into a dead-end street, milking us all the money in order to expand their (TAX PAYER SUBSIDIZED) businesses, thereby financially blocking out functional and benevolent “Real Saver” ventures from staging and growing? Anybody inside the club? Maybe a few more...
Further synthesis, analysis and conclusion at Graph 3 … but don’t miss out on the [**] or Graph 2 sections in between, here below. ]
[**  ATTENDING TO as in atmospheric and exhaust source waste gas capture plus recycling, preferentially into new useful Energy like with CCR – Carbon Capture and Recycling. The oil and gas companies will, hitherto as always, also future-wise continue their denial and disregard of any responsibility for the future well being or survival of mankind, animals and ecosystems on the planet we call Home — they buoyantly anticipate a firm grip on the energy market for decades ahead, implying a steeply descending road to Perdition.
➽  All the more reasons then, to go for the simple and self-evidently reasonable task of cleaning up their act (our acts) by implementing Atmospheric CleanUp Energy Regeneration technology for feeding the electricity producing power plants, industrial plants and facilities, and transportation sectors with cyclically rebred energy out of their own smokestack exhaust waste gases or captured from the atmospherea perpetual Combust Regenerate Energy Cycle based on Artificial Photosynthesis — regulating our climate, ocean levels, and sea & lake acidification through regulating the Carbondioxide CO2 levels. Additionally, through capturing and reusing (as is) Methane CH4 and Nitrousoxide N2O by means of today already existing (though improvable) capturing techniques.
 All the more reasons for supporting an effective solution through contributing to our funding campaign. ]

Line graph of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. It shows a slow increase from about 500 million metric tons in 1900 to about 1,500 in 1950. After 1950, the increase in emissions is more rapid, reaching approximately 9,500 in 2011.Graph 2.  1900 – 2011 historic Global Carbon emissions from fossil fuels totaling all economic sectors

– comment: Global Carbon(dioxide) CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have steadily risen since 1900, especially since 1950. Since 1970, CO2 emissions have risen by 90%, with emissions from fossil fuel combustion & industrial processes contributing by 78% to the total greenhouse gas emissions increase 1970 – 2011. Agriculture, deforestation, and other land-use changes are 2nd largest contributors (view Graph 4 below).
The Dec 2016 level of CO2 in the atmospheric was 45% above the level when the Industrial Revolution started in 1750: 405 ppm today compared to 280 ppm in 1750. The largest national contributions to the net growth in total global emissions in 2013 were China (58% of the growth), USA (20% of the growth), India (17% of the growth), and EU28 (a decrease by 11% of the growth).
Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (all of which boasting a 23 to hundreds of times stronger climatic effect than CO2) have also increased steadily since 1900: CH4 Methane from natural gas extraction, N2O Nitrousoxide from farming, H2O water vapor from warmer sea surface evaporation. To learn more about past and projected global emissions of non-CO2 gases, view the EPA report
    Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2020.

eia-world-energy-consumption-1990-2040Graph 3.  1990 – 2040 historic + projected future Global Energy consumption by fuel type (NB: ‘Liquids‘ in the graph implies OIL, whereas ‘Renewables‘ include Hydro power)
– comment: Reconnecting to [*] under Graph 1 (did you read sections [**] under Graph 1, and Graph 2 herein between? If not, do so.)
 Further Synthesis and Analysis irradiate that global Carbon(dioxide) CO2 emissions from fossil fuels will steadily keep rising also future-wise, AS LONG AS UNATTENDED — view [**] under Graph 1. Graph 3 shows that the projected rise in global energy consumption for (the years ahead leading up to) 2040 compared to 2014 is a mind-blowing 50%. Alas thereof almost exclusively fossil fuels. About Time then to turn the tide of climbing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations of Carbondioxide CO2, Methane CH4 and Nitrousoxide N2O, in order to meet the fossil waste gas expansions and atmospheric aggregation that will follow suit upon the increased energy consumption! View [**] under Graph 1 for fully functional action proposals.
 All Syntheses and Analyses combined point alas to one gloomy Conclusion only:
The Economical and Political Elite likes what they see. They wish for us all to fatally stay on their treadmill all the way to Perdition, because they, as individuals, as corporations, benefit Big-Time from all fatal climatic No-Remedy Scenarios keeping them enriched from us all just trying to speed up that dysfunctional treadmill, ever faster, soon panicking — enforced by blatantly yet shamelessly dishonest but nevertheless Admitted and Politically Correct Propaganda.
➽  All that those self-sufficient, low-endowed gangsters want to do is pursue their Roadshow on their Road of Deception, and keep You, keep us all on the Road to Perdition. That’s what serves their own interests best. That’s how The Economical and Political Elite has managed for so long, and intend to pursue for as long as we allow them, to have us put our faith, engagement and TAX-PAYER EARNED MONEY into their governmentally SUBSIDIZED, between them cojoint economic ventures. A global, monumental, endless CON ACT that they as veritable criminals unabashed and unhindered get away with whilst trusted and undeservedly applauded by a faithful, ignorant, naive joint global community. Somme toute, what they do is abuse our tax money and our confidence to fill their own pockets on insincere pseudo-solutions based on archaic ideas and malfunctioning technology. And this is called Progress in Renewables “Technology”? Embarrasing, at very best. Fatal to us all, at the core of it!
Those societal parasites – sucking out not only our money, but the spirits, hopes, lives slowly out of us all by the minute, and counting – conned us all into embracing their windmills as some 21st Century Ultra-High-Tech energy science masterpiece! Jamming gearboxes, corroding fiercely both in-and outside by salty sea air, expensive to produce and install, even more so to maintain and almost impossible to repair (at sea). With a typical electrical maximum power (output capacity!!, view [*] under Graph 1) of maximum only 3-5 MW each  🙂  — Even less than ten Ferraris produce more power AT YOUR WILL, standing by 24/7 for you to turn the ignition key whenever. Even the archaic breed of farmers of this planet made much better use of their (once High-Tech) windmills during bygone times, than the HIGH-COST laughing-matters put on display today! — doing nothing but corroding, jamming, killing eagles et al., and disturbing or even hindering onshore-offshore security surveillance and air operations…
➽  Face these facts — Involve, Oppose and get Active against !! Cause the “solutions” they’re feeding You, feeding us all are HOAX ALL THROUGH. Instead, run for benevolent, feasible, fully functional solutions. For saving whom and what is Dear to You and what SHOULD BE to Us All.

Graph 4.  Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by economic sector in 2010
– comment: surprisingly to many people, who see electric cars (together with solar and wind power, view Graph 1) as a Messiah, the entire global Transportation sector (heavy-duty lorries, trucks, buses, industrial & construction diesel machinery, cars, motorcycles, mopeds, diesel trains, marine vessels, and aircraft, all including freight, COMBINED) account for no more than 14%* (cars thereof less than half, i.e. roughly 7% of total global Carbondioxide CO2 emissions)!  [* In the US alone, almost 30%]
This graph also discloses the utopia — the complete impracticability and uselessness of trying to capture CO2 or other GHG emissions at their source: even if we’d hypothetically succeed in the Mt Everest-size effort of trapping ALL CO2 emissions from big- & small-scale electricity production, 75% of the GHGs plus all related non-CO2 emissions would still elude; even when including ALL (millions upon millions of) big- & small-scale industry CO2 emissions sources, 54% would elude. With every other economic sector increasing their emissions year by year. Enough to drown the world before we’d see it coming, due to points-of-no-return passed and violent threshold effects — e.g. gigantic coastal Antarctic glacier fringes breaking off and crushing the surrounding marine ice shelves* with sea-elevating consequences as well as the additional effect of destabilizing the support for coast-near as well as country-sized inland glaciers from sliding out into the ocean, inducing tsunamis manifolds higher than ever seen before.  [* Ice shelves are vast expanses of ice floating on the sea, several hundred metres thick, at the edge of glaciers. ]

Graph 5.  Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by type of Gas in 2015
– comment: Methane CH4 currently accounts for 16% of total GHGs emitted, but CH4 is a 23 times more aggressive climate warming effective gas than Carbondioxide CO2! Hence, multiplying 16% by 23 giving 3.68 proves that 2015 emissions of CH4 have a 3.68 times more detrimentally climatic impact than CO2! This is a fast growing issue for the world, since fracking (hydraulic fracturing/ shale gas drilling) for natural gas (predominantly CH4) and [more uncommonly] oil extraction mainly in the USA (but also in 16 other countries) leaks Methane CH4 into the atmosphere from drill holes during extraction but also after the companies have left extraction sites poorly caulked after themselves.

Graph 6.  Global Carbondioxide CO2 emissions by country of origin in 2011
– comment: Since 2011 China has speeded up their emissions of CO2, partly due to a stark accretion of cars and other road transports, but overwhelmingly more due to inaugurating new Coal fired power plants (roughly one per week!) to the point that Chinese electricity production power (effect) from Coal alone 2015 was in no less than 1100 GW, whereas comparatively US Coal power was 350 GW.

Graph 7.  1855 – 2009 Global Carbon(dioxide) CO2 emissions from energy production (omitting heating, transports, industry, cement manufacturing, farming, forestry etc)
– comment: China has since the mid-00’s overtaken the pole position of global Carbon(dioxide) CO2 emitters — Chinese electricity production power (effect) from Coal alone was in 2015 no less than 1100 GW, whereas US Coal power was just 350 GW. The development during our present decade is no less discouraging

Graph 8.  2012 US total R&D spending percentage as a share of sales
– comment: the United States is severely under-investing in Clean Energy R&D (Research & Development)! Ludicrous and shocking to all those unaware — “what do they expect”??

Graph 9.  1975 – 2012 US federal R&D budgets for energy, defense and health
– comment: no comments necessary…  😯

Graph 10.  2011 Global public energy R&D spendings country-wise
– comment: China inaugurates a new Coal-fired power plant each week (only, a month into 2017 however announcing a time-out in new deployments). From that perspective, their public energy R&D spendings are shameful (0.11% of GDP) — not least since their net detrimental climatic impact is top of the league. Finnland, a poorer Nordic country, on the other hand impresses [relatively] much (0.13% of GDP still isn’t exactly skyrocketing, but stands out in the pitiful competition). Let’s hope the industrialized countries of the world all very soon make amends — a multiplying factor 10 to 100 (Oh Yes!) times today’s readings would be urgently needed, no doubt. Poland (by far lowest, hardly measurable R&D spendings) are huge emitters of Coal power CO2 emissions (and of industrial waste and feces polluted rivers running out into the Baltic Sea), but as always park their heads in the sand and leave it to the rest of us to clean up their dirty act. New Zealand, once a proud stronghold of Greenpeace and other environmentalist minded people, today disappoint the world by negligible 0.01% energy R&D spendings of their GDP and an also otherwise blatant prioritizing of a raw-capitalistic economic growth. So sad to see shortsighted egoism and irresponsible climatic disregard gradually take over more and more in so many countries (ref also to Graph 9: US Energy R&D Spendings up to 1978 and Decline since, and to Graph 8: 2012 US Energy R&D Budget).

B  E  C  A  U  S  E

Coal power plant smokestacksPhoto: alohaspirit/iStock

W E ‘ R E   L I A B L E   T O
C L E A N I N G   U P   O U R   A C T

smokestacks and air pollutionPhoto by Kim Semg (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Carbon is Energy – in any compound!
We should recycle and make fuel of it


“If you get up in the morning and think the future is going to be better, it is a bright day. Otherwise, it’s not.” Elon Musk (PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla, Hyperloop, SolarCity, & OpenAI)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Writing in The Baffler, Laurie Penny explores what it will mean for the civilization to collapse slowly, because of climate change, rather than in a single nuclear bang:

” For anyone who grew up in the Cold War, the apocalypse was a simple yes-no question: either it was coming, or it wasn’t. Many people I know who grew up before the end of the nuclear arms race describe this as oddly freeing: there was the sense that since the future might explode at any point, it was not worth the effort of planning. Climate change is species collapse by a thousand cuts. There will be no definitive moment we can say that yes, today we are fucked, and yesterday we were unfucked. Instead the fuckery increases incrementally year on year, until this is the way the world ends: not with a bang, not with a bonfire, but with the slow and savage confiscation of every little thing that made you human, starting with hope.
  . . .

 Read her full article here

We wish for the world to move away from a global Elite driven systemic Energy – Climate paradigm:

… to merely a less organized bunch of (black-suite) anti-heros:Hiding head in sand

… to even less…                                … to just “That One…”               … to just this one?
head_in_sand_few   head_in_sand_1   head_in_sand_ostrich

…No, to None!  this one burying its head in the sand is a myth, as You know?
No animal is that stupid, nor could it be  unless counting our own species in

… … … ?!

Here are all our posts in this blog:

Water. and Air.   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Nov 27)
Facts. non-Alternative.      –   –   –   –   –   (2017 Feb 20)   
News. Terrifying.    –    –   –   –   –   –   –   (2017 Mar 29)
Zero options? Never.     –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 05)
Scenarios. and Implications.    –   –   –   –   (2017 Jan 02)
Gates Notes. on Climate-Energy.       –   –   (2017 Jan 24)
Answers. to Questions.       –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
Testimonials. of Progress.     –   –   –   –     (2017 Jul 21)
CCR – APS processes     –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
APS/e3 concept outlines     –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
CatELab-APS/e3 research software    –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
CatELab & APS/e3 integrated processes
   –   (2016 Dec 14)

Here is our corporate website & our funding campaign:

Acwareus Climate-Energy Solutions – official website
Our [imminent] funding campaign (draft)

Fossil Emissions 0 in our Monocular — Enairgy Magic? No, Simple Logic!


Oh, and everybody says Hi! Or some alternative. With regards 2 da DJ  🙂

Gates Notes. on Climate-Energy.


Here are some links to blog posts by Mr Bill Gates (of Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation and formerly Microsoft, as everyone knows) at Gates Notes on the interrelated subjects of Energy and Climate — feel free to filter them through Your own Favorite Interpretative Sunglasses and to reflect them back to Your own mind upon contemplation (or whatever) as well as to those minds of Your friends (or whoever). And don’t miss out on the ensuing blog post discussions!

[ N.B: Though not a fan to Mr Gates in all he does or even says, we think his official views in here on (among other subjects) the interrelated Energy and Climate are discerning, very informative and worth much respect. However, we could only wish for a Gates Foundation Revelation on Recycling and Energy Recovery from fatal Atmospheric Fossil Waste Gases that have set our planet Earth on an accelerating sledge to Perdition. ]

A British The Guardian partial investment report of March 2015 on Gates Foundation’s 2013 tax filing follows below at the bottom section… intriguing indeed, we’ll guarantee. (may be why you’ll hardly ever see their logo in the ads or sponsors sections of Our website…)

A New Model for Investing in Energy Innovation  (Dec 12, 2016)

We Need Energy Miracles  (June 25, 2014)

Powering the Fight Against Poverty  (June 25, 2014)

We Need Clean Energy Innovation and Lots of It  (July 29, 2015)

More Momentum for Clean Energy  (June 1, 2016)

It Is Surprisingly Hard to Store Energy  (Feb 22, 2016)

Progress on Clean Energy  (Feb 8, 2016)

Accelerating Innovation with Leadership  (Oct 6, 2016)

2016 Annual Letter    chpt. “More Energy” & “Get Involved”  (2016)

Catalytic Philanthropy Innovating Where Markets Won’t and Governments Can’t  (March 27, 2014)

Two Videos that Illuminate Energy Poverty  (June 25, 2014)

Living With Energy Poverty  (June 21, 2016)

Who Will Suffer Most From Climate Change (Hint: Not You)  (Sep 1, 2015)

Adept at Adapting  (Sep 1, 2015)

Energy and Time Quiz  (Feb 22, 2016)

All posts (on all subjects) written by Bill or Melinda at the Gates Notes blog

People in the developing world will be among the first to suffer the effects of climate change, even though they hardly did anything to cause it.

As we invest in ways to achieve zero-carbon energy, I believe we also have a responsibility to help poor countries adapt to the realities of a changing environment.

The world has solved huge problems before, and I’m confident that we can solve this one through commitment, focus and innovation.

Bill Gates

[ N.B: Though not a fan to Mr Gates in all he does or even says, we think his official views in here on (among other subjects) the interrelated Energy and Climate are discerning, very informative and worth much respect. However, we could only wish for a Gates Foundation Revelation on Recycling and Energy Recovery from fatal Atmospheric Fossil Waste Gases that have set our planet Earth on an accelerating sledge to Perdition. ]

Thanks for involving, Bill!
Now take the natural step,
For seeing us Home safely



Below you’ll find a partial investment report of March 2015 on Gates Foundation’s 2013 tax filing, compiled by British The Guardian… very intriguing, we’ll guarantee. (may be why you’ll hardly ever see their logo in the ads or sponsors sections of Our website…)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Revealed: Gates Foundation’s $1.4bn in fossil fuel investments

March 19, 2015

Analysis of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s most recent tax filing reveals huge investments in the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies

The charity run by Bill and Melinda Gates, who say the threat of climate change is so serious that immediate action is needed, held at least $1.4bn (£1bn) of investments in the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies, according to a Guardian analysis of the charity’s most recent tax filing in 2013.

The companies include BP, responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko Petroleum, which was recently forced to pay a $5bn environmental clean-up charge and Brazilian mining company Vale, voted the corporation with most “contempt for the environment and human rights” in the world clocking over 25,000 votes in the Public Eye annual awards.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Asset Trust is the world’s largest charitable foundation, with an endowment of over $43bn, and has already given out $33bn in grants to health programmes around the world, including one that helped rid India of polio in 2014.

A Guardian campaign, launched on Monday and already backed by over 95,000 people is asking the Gates to sell their fossil fuel investments. It argues: “Your organisation has made a huge contribution to human progress … yet your investments in fossil fuels are putting this progress at great risk. It is morally and financially misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding and burning more oil, gas and coal.”

Existing fossil fuel reserves are several times greater than can be burned if the world’s governments are to fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below the danger limit of 2C, but fossil fuel companies continue to spend billions on exploration. In addition to the climate risk, the Bank of England and others argue that fossil fuel assets may pose a “huge risk” to pension funds and other investors as they could be rendered worthless by action to slash carbon emissions.

A landmark report citing climate change published by the Lancet medical journal and University College London concluded that climate change is “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”.

In their annual letter in January, Bill and Melinda Gates wrote: “The long-term threat [of climate change] is so serious that the world needs to move much more aggressively – right now – to develop energy sources that are cheaper, can deliver on demand, and emit zero carbon dioxide.”

The Guardian analysis of the Gates endowment revealed investments in 35 of the top 200 companies as ranked by the carbon held in their reserves. These included coal giants Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Glencore Xstrata and Peabody Energy, the oil majors Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total and Brazilian oil company Petrobras, currently embroiled in a corruption scandal.

“This is very shocking. I never knew that they had so much of this kind of investment,” said Nnimmo Bassey, a Nigerian activist who received the Right Livelihood Award in 2010 for “revealing the full ecological and human horrors of oil production” in the Niger delta where many oil majors operate. “If this is a charity that really care about the health of the people, they ought not to be investing in fossil fuel industries. They should pull back their resources from this sector completely.”

 The Gates Foundation’s fossil fuel investments

Bill McKibben, who leads the fast-growing Go Fossil Free campaign, said: “The Gates Foundation has worked so hard to grapple with global poverty. But at the same time they’re investing in the same companies that drive climate change, which endless studies now show is one of the key factors behind … global poverty. The developing world deserves better than this kind of tunnel vision.”

He said: “The great industrial fortune of the 20th century, the Rockefeller oil legacy, has begun aggressively divesting from fossil fuel, arguing explicitly that climate change undermines its philanthropy for a better world. It’s time for the great technological fortune of the 21st century to do likewise.”

Prof Hugh Montgomery, a medical doctor at University College London and one of the authors of the UCL/Lancet study said: “I am backing the Guardian divestment campaign because I support the Gates Foundation and am a great fan of their work. I just want to help them to do more good.”

A spokesman for Bill Gates’s private office said: “We respect the passion of advocates for action on climate change, and recognise that there are many views on how best to address it. Bill is privately investing considerable time and resources in the effort [to develop clean energy].”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation declined to comment on fossil fuel divestment and said all investment decisions were taken by a separate entity, the Asset Trust, which manages the endowment but never makes public comments.

However, the Gates’s charity has a track record of divestment from other sectors, having sold companies linked to the conflict in Sudan and banned tobacco investments. It also sold its stake in a security company G4S, following controversy over its prison contracts in Israel.

The Gates charity investment policy states: “When instructing the investment managers, Bill and Melinda consider issues beyond corporate profits, including the values that drive the foundation’s work. They have defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that they find egregious. Bill and Melinda regularly re-assess the endowment’s holdings.”

In recent months, the Gates charity sold off its huge stake in ExxonMobil for $766m, which has in the past funded climate change deniers and now argues it is “highly unlikely” that international action on global warming will stop it selling oil and gas “far into the future”. No reason was given and it is unknown whether new fossil fuel investments have been bought.

“At this critical moment in time, if you own fossil fuels, you own climate change,” said Ellen Dorsey, executive director of the $168m Wallace Global Fund, which has fully divested from fossil fuels and now invests in renewables and energy efficiency.

She has worked with many of the 75 other philanthropic organisations that have followed suit. “At a minimum, our investments should not be driving the problems we ask our grantees to solve. And those who acted early avoided the collapse of coal and oil prices. They were rewarded with strong financial returns: doing well while doing good.”

Dorsey said fossil fuel divestment by the Gates charity would be a huge boost for the fight against climate change: “For a foundation with such global prominence to lend its full weight – with grants and investments combined – would be game changing.”

Since you’re here …

 Fuelticker — How much oil has been extracted in your lifetime?


Here are all our posts in this blog:

Water. and Air.   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Nov 27)
Facts. non-Alternative.      –   –   –   –   –   (2017 Feb 20)   
News. Terrifying.    –    –   –   –   –   –   –   (2017 Mar 29)
Zero options? Never.     –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 05)
Scenarios. and Implications.    –   –   –   –   (2017 Jan 02)
Gates Notes. on Climate-Energy.       –   –   (2017 Jan 24)
Answers. to Questions.       –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
Testimonials. of Progress.     –   –   –   –     (2017 Jul 21)
CCR – APS processes     –   –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
APS/e3 concept outlines     –   –   –   –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
CatELab-APS/e3 research software    –   –   (2016 Dec 14)
CatELab & APS/e3 integrated processes
   –   (2016 Dec 14)

Here is our corporate website & our funding campaign:

Acwareus Climate-Energy Solutions – official website
Our [imminent] funding campaign (draft)