Sign the petition to ban Triclosan and Triclocarbon for non-medical purposes.
Get Toxic Anti-microbial Chemicals Out of My Soap and Body

Now comes proof of just how much good we could do by controlling our populace: A recently-released study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that if we slowed global population, we could cut emissions an incredible 16 to 29 percent by 2050 and even more steeply by the end of the century.

So why, despite the mounting evidence, do we continue to sidestep the issue of overpopulation? There are several reasons, the most basic being that it’s a tricky topic to broach. In a recent Mother Jones article, Julia Whitty reported that the carbon legacy of one American child and her offspring is 20 times greater than every other sustainable maternal choice combined. The problem is, those other sustainable choices are a lot less personal, and so are much easier to preach about. (Put another way: “Don’t have kids!” is a tough sell).

The controversial issue of family planning also comes into play. In a recent post, Change.org blogger Ben Broffer shared that almost 40 percent of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned, and 123 million women have an unmet need for family planning. But the best tools at our disposal to combat this—legalizing abortion and making contraceptives widely available—are two of the thorniest social, political and religious issues around.

In light of the complicated nature of the issue—eloquently described by Whitty as “The Last Taboo”—it seems the best recourse we have is simply to stop ignoring it. Not everyone will make the same choices when it comes to overpopulation, and there’s no way to mandate its control on a global scale. But by acknowledging overpopulation is a Big Problem, we can prompt people to ponder the choices they make, and governments to pass measures to help.

In other words, it’s time to acknowledge the elephant. And you can start by signing a petition in support of the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act, which would strengthen and expand U.S. foreign assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs in developing nations.

Photo credit: David Crow/Wikimedia Commons

Follow Change.org’s Environment page on Facebook and Twitter.

Overpopulation: The Real Inconvenient Truth

Floods not only hold the devastating potential to displace thousands of people from their homes, and kill or injure those in its path, but the surges often cut off large populations of people from food, medical supplies and potable water. Without access to these vital resources, health risks and fatalities can multiply exponentially in a matter of days or even hours.

In many cases these horrible circumstances are compounded by the fact that for those who were homeless before a flood, gaining access to clean water was already an enormous challenge. As Change.org blogger Steven Samra pointed out earlier this year, when massive floods swept through Nashville in May, residents of the city’s largest homeless encampment not only lost all their personal possessions, but also lacked the social safety net available to those who had been previously housed. Unable to access local, state or federal aid, without the assistance of housed friends and family, and dislocated from what limited resources (food, water, etc.) they may have had before the flood, many peoples’ situation went from bad to worse.

Similar circumstances were likely faced by those individuals who were living in tents along the dry Salt River of Tempe, Arizona, which suddenly flooded this past July after a rubber dam burst. And just as that flood may have been avoided if Tempe city officials hadn’t ignored safety recommendations from the makers of the dam, recent floods — and not so recent floods — should serve as vivid reminders that we need to take proactive measures to minimize the impact of potential disasters and speed recovery efforts, especially for the most vulnerable populations. And as bloggers Rich and Elizabeth Lombino highlighted recently, ignoring the environment can have disastrous effects on peoples’ lives.

Find out what you can do to help with water issues for Blog Action Day and be sure to sign our petition urging President Obama to rebuild New Orleans.

Photo credit: Jay Bock

Too Much Water Worsens Problem of Not Enough

As the New York Times reports, member countries of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) will meet in Paris next month. What’s decided at the meeting could make or break bluefin tuna’s survival.

The ICCAT meeting establishes yearly catch limits for the threatened fish. Scientists say that if nations stick to 2009’s catch limit — 13,500 tons — the overfished bluefin stand a 60 percent chance of bouncing back by 2019. But based on fishing nations’ past history with illegal and underreported catches, it seems like the odds of survival are stacked against the struggling bluefin.

Every year, fishing nations are supposed to report the amount of bluefin tuna they catch. This data is analyzed and used to evaluate bluefin tuna’s population numbers and establish catch limits. However, as the NYT reports, most nations fail to accurately report the number of tuna they take from the seas. “Some years, some countries don’t report,” Brad Smith, a marine ecologist with the Pew Environment Group, told the NYT. “Or they report too late. Or they underreport. When there’s so much non-compliance, nobody complains.” Last year alone, 85 percent of fishing nations failed to meet reporting deadlines or accurately depict how much tuna they caught. Smith estimates that Mediterranean nations — which catch some of the highest amounts of bluefin — underreported their catches by as much as two-thirds. That complete lack of transparency makes it virtually impossible to set up stringent bluefin tuna conservation measures.

What’s worse is that many nations catch bluefin illegally. Illegal fishing of all kinds runs rampant on the high seas, but it’s especially problematic for bluefin because the swimmers can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars per fish.

Lax regulations and a high price per pound don’t provide much incentive for fishermen to take it easy on the tuna. What would help boost the struggling swimmers population numbers is a moratorium on bluefin fishing. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), already said that if not enough progress was made at the upcoming ICCAT meeting, she would consider a moratorium on bluefin tuna fishing. Sign our petition asking Lubchenco to push for a moratorium now — it may be the only way to prevent bluefin tuna from going the way of the Dodo.

Photo credit: FreeCat via Flickr

Bluefin Tuna in Hot Water

It is now clear, that the greatest threat to mankind and Earth itself comes from overpopulation, which is growing at an exponential rate – as underlined in a recent UN Study: Slower Population Growth To Help Environment

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j74yWpJ1atBwCsu78IVj2VOABDzg

?

As we all well know, the population of a given country is to be considered in relation with the available territory, the resources, the state of, interaction with and impact on the environment, the flora and fauna, and this all with regards to the modes of social and economic productions and the standard of life, which are therethrough responsibly achieved or made potentially realizable.
This is as true as the fact, that this planet forms a rather homogeneous eco-system, wherein not only all the elements are interdependent and interconnected, but also one, in which each of these elements is equally important and necessary to the preservation of the whole.
Human societies are not exempt from these natural principles and in the current world view and international practice, whereby the notions of integration and globalization are the motto, it is practically impossible to render proper measure of overpopulation in national or regional terms or to approach it exclusively in such a context. No country is an exception.

Overpopulation is a worldwide issue.
Overpopulation is an all-human tragedy and, as such, it requires a worldwide understanding and solution.
The situation may of course differ from one country to another, but this does not substantially change the global picture, for, also the less overpopulated areas would eventually face it and taste it through immigration and the effects of overpopulation on the overall state of the climate, the environment, the resources and the globalized economy as well as on world peace and stability.
Besides, without tackling overpopulation, all measures, which would be taken to ensure the growth of the economy and provide a given population of a given country with a higher quality of life, would only be postponing, shoving the problem onto future generations?? -? as if “killing our grandchildren to feed our children.”, to quote one wise man.

Overpopulation and its consequences on our evolution and our security as well as on the sustainability of this planet?are definitely a source of great concern: there are just too many of us? -? think of the amount of garbage alone, which seven billion Humans produce! Daily.

It is also obvious, that our planet is subject to far-reaching changes.
The consequences of these changes could be catastrophic, if we do not re-adjust our ways of thinking and doing, also with regards to reproduction and population.

Our world is extremely overpopulated; our legitimate demands of food, energy, water and other goods of first necessity weigh heavily on the available resources, the environment, the flora and fauna. This is no longer sustainable.

?

A worldwide, rational, responsible, democratic ( applicable and mandatory to each and all! ), scientific and rigorously monitored Birth Control is the only logical, mature and ethical answer to this unprecedented, but largely foreseen challenge.

?

Some, however, speak of free energy, as the ultimate remedy to this crisis.
Truly, technology alone is not a panacea in human matters.
Lasting food security, development in sustainability thus, could hardly be realized without absorbing into the equation the determining factor of human population and its diverse legitimate demands, both of which will be growing exponentially.

?

Others may still say, “multiply yourself” orders The Bible.
Genesis 1:22: “God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”.”

Well, we certainly shall argue here, that reason is also given to us, so that we can know, judge and decide when we ‘have multiplied enough’.

And again, the Commandment could have as well been: “multiply yourself with wisdom and reason and humaneness and knowledge and care and management.”
Besides, if we keep procreating the way we now do, there wouldn’t be much animals, fish, trees, “birds” left “on the earth”!

Overpopulation has indeed a deeper spiritual dimension and, besides,? the following summary makes convincingly the case for a serious struggle against overpopulation, even if one is to consider?the issue?from a solely practical point of view:

Fewer Humans = smaller petroleum demand = less carbon dioxide/monoxide produced by cars and industry

Fewer Humans = reduced food demand = fewer trees cut down for farmland (e.g. Brazilian rainforest)

Fewer Humans = reduced demand for everything which results in a reduced price/cost for everything (education, well-being, housing, energy, food…)

?

We are already causing drastic climate change; species are going extinct and fellow Humans are starving to death en masse which means that the population is obviously already too high.

?

Do please endorse us and most importantly, do strongly advocate a rational, democratic and scientific birth control, at home and abroad; empower Women, add your influential voice to ours, help us promote a humane and just solution to this tragedy!

?

?

Thank you and may reason and wisdom prevail.

Overpopulation Awareness & Birth Control

You can thank U.S. EPA. On Friday, gun-lovers won a crucial battle against conservationists and wildlife when, in a surprising move, the agency rejected a request (pdf) from environmental groups for a ban on lead in gun ammunition and tackle.

The Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy and other groups argue lead toxins are wreaking havoc on the environment and have some startling numbers to back up the claim, including:

–Up to 20 million birds and other animals are killed each year as a result of lead poisoning.

–At least 75 wild bird species, including bald eagles and endangered California condors, are poisoned by spent lead ammo.

–About 87,000 tons of lead are released into the environment each year as a result of hunting, fishing and shooting ranges. As Change.org Animals blogger Martin Matheny recently pointed out, that’s as many tons as there are in the U.S. Navy’s largest vessel.

–Humans who eat game shot down with lead ammo face serious health risks. A recent study found that up to 87 percent of cooked fowl killed by lead ammo can contain unsafe lead levels.

In the face of such staggering figures, why the rejection? EPA argued it doesn’t have the right to regulate ammo under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which forbids regulation of products subject to an excise tax—including guns. EPA assistant administrator Steve Owens said in a statement, “EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act—nor is the agency seeking such authority.”

Eco-groups are countering that this argument is hooey. They just want the dangerous lead component of gun ammo banned, not the guns themselves. Not to mention the fact that EPA has a long history of lead regulation in the marketplace, including products such as paint and pipes.

One wonders if fierce outside pressure had anything to do with the EPA’s confounding dismissal. Could it possibly be?

Look, of course, no further than the NRA. The powerful lobby group waged a fiery battle against a ban, claiming it posed a threat to their most sacred Second Amendment. On Aug. 20, the association sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson asking outright for the request to be shot down. None other than notorious environment-hater Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), who is the Senate’s top Republican on the environment committee, also added his voice to the chorus of dissent. “They are just talking about taking away Americans’ freedom,” he said of the environmental groups.  (Hyperbole much, Senator?)

The big problem with this rejection is that EPA is the only real recourse available to prevent the destruction taking place thanks to poisoned ammo. Nobody’s asking gun-lovers to pack up their pistols; they’re just asking that the shooting be done in a way that doesn’t degrade the ecosystem and threaten human health. If our government’s premiere environmental agency can’t take a stand against the devastation, who can?

This petition was started before EPA made its decision on Friday. But please continue to edit and sign the letter, and tell EPA how important you think it is they reconsider their decision.

Photo credit: Renee V/Wikimedia Commons

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

EPA to NRA: Sure, Go Ahead and Poison Birds With Lead Ammo

But lately, she focuses on one thing that basically drives me up the wall. As the Post explains it, MacEachern “started a campaign on her website encouraging women to join the ‘One in a Million’ initiative by pledging to shift $1,000 of their household budgets to green products and services.” Much like the books she’s authored on the subject, her BGP website encourages women to “go green” with tips about buying less bottled water, eating less meat, having an eco-friendly Halloween, and demanding to receive fewer catalogs in the mail.

Is this Chicken Soup for the Wannabe Sustainable Soul? How many poor women who barely scraping by can think about buying “green” products in this economy and too many catalogs in their mailbox? How few of us have a grand lying around for our “household budget?” Buying fair trade chocolate and worrying about “responsible investing” are some of the most underwhelming options available when faced with melting polar ice caps, but promoting a so-called “eco-lifestyle” is really only the beginning of my frustration.

There are several serious flaws in MacEachern’s strategy to green the world. In my mind, it isn’t about pressuring companies to sell more eco-friendly products, though that’s certainly one part of a larger environmentalism strategy. But what we oughta be doing instead is something much more simple: quit buying stuff and quit hoarding. There is life after shopping.

I’m a tough critic, and I don’t like being pandered to. I really want to know: why are we still making compromises when it comes to these issues, telling people they can engage in some harmful behaviors in moderation? I believe we ought to be considering just how far these ideas about temporary solutions extend instead of blindly embracing anything labeled “woman-friendly” and “green.” When is something just not green enough? Where’s the challenge in telling women to head to the mall instead of rolling up their sleeves? Most women I know are better suited for hard work than prancing around a galleria anyway. I also figure if you have enough money to donate to a cause or go shopping for charity, you’ve likely got an hour (or a lot more) to volunteer somewhere.

Mostly, I’m insulted by the Post’s uncritical praise of the idea that women are only good for spending money or shopping our way to a better world. If we’re going to focus on “harnessing women’s power,” you’d think we’d at least be given the benefit of the doubt: our power is in more than our pocketbooks.

Photo Credit: Alanna George

Does Consumerism Save the Environment?

Due to an increased global demand for the fish’s meat, shark populations have seriously plummeted in recent years. According to Oceana, more than 100 million sharks are killed every year for their meat, oftentimes through “finning,” a brutal process where fishermen cut off sharks’ fins and throw their bodies into the ocean to die. In other cases, sharks get trapped and killed as bycatch during longline tuna fishing. Some species of shark have declined by as much as 99 percent. Sharks may reign at the top of the ocean’s food chain, but the fish’s survival is nothing short of precarious.

The severity of the shark situation is well-documented, yet stores and restaurants across the world still serve up shark meat. Even Henry’s Farmers Markets, a grocery store chain, sells shark meat, despite the store’s supposed commitment to providing products that “support a healthy lifestyle.” I’ve got news for you, Henry’s: Shark meat isn’t healthy for people, and it sure as heck isn’t healthy for ocean ecosystems.

This whole situation begs the question of why shark meat is so popular in the first place. Historically, only the most uppercrust families in China consumed shark fin soup. But recently, the soup’s popularity expanded exponentially, and is now eaten throughout Asia by middle and upper classes. Folks throughout the world also consume the fish’s meat, but the fins are where the real money lies. To show just how popular shark fin soup has become, according to an Oceana report (pdf), in 2008, 87 countries exported shark fins to Hong Kong, including the U.S.

Maybe I’m naiive or just fussy about my fish, but I’m truly surprised by shark’s popularity, especially considering that shark fishing is so unhealthy for both people and the environment. Most species of shark contain extremely high levels of mercury, so consuming them really isn’t advisable for anyone. Plus, sharks reign at the top of oceanic food chains, serving the all-important task of keeping populations of other species in check. Remove the top of the food chain and the world’s waters can get—to put it mildly—irreparably damaged. Shark fin soup already seems pretty unappetizing. The fact that it’s loaded with mercury and is largely responsible for the world’s declining oceans—well, I’d rather eat something as gross as KFC’s Double Down sandwich.

To really boost shark populations, the world needs to institute international shark fin bans, adopt species-specific management, and make efforts to reduce shark bycatch. According to the International Union of Conservation for Nature (IUCN), 50 of the world’s 307 shark species are listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. Yet only three shark species—the white, whale, and basking—are protected internationally by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The population data on sharks is out there, but legislative bodies can’t (or rather, won’t), put the proper protections in place.

Groups like Oceana and Iemanya Oceanica are pushing for greater protections for sharks. But consumers can take action now by refusing to eat the fish and calling out supermarkets that continue to sell the threatened swimmer. If we decrease demand for shark meat, fishermen will eventually realize it’s not worth their while to keep killing the animals. Sign this petition telling Henry’s Farmers Market to stop selling shark meat, and be on the lookout for other supermarkets that may stock imperiled sharks.

Photo credit: StormyDog via Flickr

Why are Supermarkets Selling Shark Meat?