Eco and Ethics

Eco and Ethics Has Moved to Greenpress.com!

2009-07-18T14:18:00.002+02:00

After having been contacted by Chris from Greenpress - whom wanted to see Eco and Ethics move to their green blog format - I decided to switch to Greenpress because I feel that it is the right decision for me and my blog right now.

We're at a point in time when we have to re-think our strategies and global tactics not only to embrace technological breakthroughs, but also to enhance them in order for us to learn how to cultivate and harvest energy in new ways.

Not only do we have to learn how to deal with e-waste and garbage, we also have to try and figure out how to use our resources better and how to globally avoid disasters and to diminish wars over water, oil and natural resources.

Logistics per se, and how we understand this concept, will change over time, and it is up to governments and citizens of the world to decide whether or not we want to limit our way of life or keep on going as before, and at the same time doing something about it.

Citizens can be encouraged to influence politics both locally and globally. They could empower themselves to hack their environments, through individual actions involve their peers as well as governmental structures in microtactical collective actions, in order to clean up their local environments, lakes, parks or even public gardens. I ask myself why there aren't initiatives that strive to clean up in deserted and zero degree spaces. Why aren't we all making these spaces more beautiful and inhabitable? I reallt want to dwell more in secret and unknown locations.

Governments and nations could in cooperation with citizens engage in macrotactical manouvres in order to learn how to spawn new solutions, new ways of understanding energy, develop ways and tools in order to grow and cultivate energy as well as re-using our existent e-waste materials as well as excess materials.

The reason why I am moving my blog to Greenpress is that I want to learn more about technologies, development of democracy in relation to speed and politics, democracy and citizenship in relation to a more transparent state as well as studying the very constitution of governments, in accordance with forward thinking democratic tools and projects.

A very powerful way of becoming engaged in politics and different environmental issues is to spawn net political clusters. I will come back to this in a later post, however, clusters can come up with a lot of good ideas, solutions as well as informative actions just by teaming up and creating assemblages and ideas through communication and chaotic teamwork.

We Rebuild.EU has got a wiki for a variety of topics of concern and importance such as net censorship, openness, net neutrality, data retention etc. However, the wiki is also used as a "tink tank" (a sort of tool oriented and idea oriented think tank), and I hope that'll be able to get someone to translate "Patent och klimatkampanjen" into English, since this kind of individual and collective cluster not only spawns new ideas and creates and interest for pressing issues, it also manifest a new idea and a new way of "tinking" and doing politics.

Citizenship is about enhancing transparency between government, institutions and citizens. It is also about acting and doing something in this day and age, and the surrounding political climate that we now face.

We are all quite naive in thinking that our protests against governments, and the complaints against the democratic reorganisation neither will spawn new solutions nor shrinking the gap between the national and the global, between the citizen and the politician and between the individual and the collective. It is time to write more about how citizens can spawn, create and to cultivate ideas and solutions in order for governments to try and implement these solutions into a global problem solving scheme.

Eco and Ethics

Ray Kurzweil Talks About Technological Advancement

2009-06-13T16:44:00.003+02:00

Ray Kurzweil's latest data shows that technological development will continue to accelerate even though we're currently in an economic recession.

If we look at the graphs we can clearly see that the technological development has gone through periods of recession in the past, and we ought to continue developing information technologies etc. in order to spread fortwardthinking ideas and progressive technologies to mankind.

In this TED talk, Kurzweil also unveils his new project, Singularity University, to study technology on the verge of breakthrough and find ways to share this technology in order to benefit humanity.

In the talk you will also be able to hear some remarks and thoughts about the environmental and global issues we all have to deal with in new updated ways.

We need to rebuild the ethical environment, perspectives on problem solving and political attitudes.

Ray Kurzweil is an engineer who has radically advanced the fields of speech, text, and audio technology.

Hans Rosling's Talks on TED

2009-05-29T12:46:00.003+02:00

Have you seen Hans Rosling's talks on TED yet?

I encourage you to see these talks because they are already classics as well as very inspiring. They will challenge your preconceptions and your way of thinking about globalization, markets, economy and data. The first talk was filmed Feb 2006 and the second talk was filmed Mar 2007.

Hans Rosling (b.1948 in Uppsala, Sweden) is Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institutet and Director of the Gapminder Foundation, which developed the Trendalyzer software system. From 1967 to 1974 he studied statistics and medicine at Uppsala University, and in 1972 he studied public health at St John's Medical College, Bangalore. He became a licenced physician in 1976 and from 1979 to 1981 he served as District Medical Officer in Nacala in northern Mozambique.[]

"You've never seen data presented like this. With the drama and urgency of a sportscaster, statistics guru Hans Rosling debunks myths about the so-called "developing world.""

"Researcher Hans Rosling uses his cool data tools to show how countries are pulling themselves out of poverty. He demos Dollar Street, comparing households of varying income levels worldwide. Then he does something really amazing."

Link:

Gapminder.org

The Skeptic's Handbook

2009-05-19T09:04:00.001+02:00

"Rise above the mud-slinging in the Global Warming
debate. Here are the strategies and tools you need
cut through the red-herrings and avoid the traps."

The Skeptic's Handbook

Juan Enriquez: Why can't we grow new energy?

2009-04-08T21:58:00.001+02:00

Juan Enriquez: Why can't we grow new energy?

"Juan Enriquez challenges our definition of bioenergy. Oil, coal, gas and other hydrocarbons are not chemical but biological products, based on plant matter -- and thus, growable. Our whole approach to fuel, he argues, needs to change."

"Juan Enriquez thinks and writes about the profound changes that genomics and other life sciences will cause in business, technology, politics and society. Full bio and more links"

TED: Ideas worth spreading

Is Climate Alarmism A Threat?

2009-04-08T18:16:00.002+02:00

I've done a lengthy blog post on a report from the swedish think tank Timbro, about the climate debate as a potential environmental threat. If you know some swedish then you can read about it here.

If you are interested in knowing more about this report, then contact Timbro by going to their site.

The report from Holdstock and Poirier Martinsson does bring up a connection between the reports from a governmental institution working with environmental goals, and the swedish media.

H & PM show that the reports have become more centralised in favouring the climate goal, thus pushing the other environmental goals away from the agenda.

H & PM bring up a lot of interesting data and connections which makes me think that this is a real phenomenon. However, they only mention the possibility that media reports and their climate alarmism can be a threat to the environment. They do not really link anything substantial to this claim.

Nevertheless, this report is rather interesting since the results show that the media have been favouring certain kinds of reports rather than others.

Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus On "Global Warming Alarmism"

2009-03-19T15:24:00.003+01:00

The Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who holds the European Union presidency at the moment, condems "global warming alarmism" in a recent speech.

The "alarmists" are not concerned about environmental micro management and they do not have an acceptable view concerning risks. They are infact misusing climate change information in their quest to expand the role of government.

In other words, they are using climate crisis as a scapegoat to expand profits and the role of government. This is a very negative attitude and citizens lose their sense of knowing which threats are worth fighting and which risks that should be taken seriously - both locally and globally.

We are allowed to doubt views that are taken for granted in the name of science. Doubt and skepticism is also science and should be taken seriously. If all views are allowed within a scientific community, then different views will in time, come to dissolve themselves. Stupid or unpredictable research or hypothetical frameworks, will over time, fall apart and shift towards a new paradigm. However, we have to allow theoretical and hypotetical frameworks that are against the current paradigm.

All scientific facts are always already packaged interpretations, which come from interpretation of scientific data and imagined models.

Swedish Toxicologist On Environmental Frenzy

2009-02-22T22:03:00.003+01:00

Swedish toxicologist professor Robert Nilsson at Stockholm University had an article in today's DN about the environmental frenzy. His concern is directed towards the fact that swedish governmental insitutions lack the general insights as to what real threats against our environment are.

What is a real environmental threat anyway? Environmental extremism or fundamentalism can really cloud our judgements as to what is a real threat and we cannot really trust our governmental institutions in these matters.

If you want to know more about radiation, particles in the air and other toxic related stuff, then you have to gather information from several sources.

I for one do not really know if all the particles, data and transmissions in the air is hazardous or not. I have no way of knowing this without looking at scientific facts or trying to sense how I am feeling. I will not entirely trust any external sources in these matters nor will I force my beliefs onto someone else, but I cannot go and hide from all the dangerous stuff either; I will not avoid the debates and discussions concerning these matters.

The institutions rely on different kinds of labelling and categorization. The climate friendly, ecological and the environmental friendly have gone from being serious concepts, to becoming static clusters of non-meaning with economic and political connotations.

When I hear these concepts in the media or in politics they feel so dated and stagnated. I still buy a lot of ecological stuff when i buy food and I like to have that option, however, politicians use our awareness and our fear in order to change and manipulate us, as well as the politics and our society as a whole.

Even though there are real threats, politicians tend to make us believe that everything is a threat. There is a sort of notion in swedish politics that citizens are stupid and cannot know what is good for our society and our environment. The political situation is even worse when intellectuals and scientists are not allowed to have different opinions on these concepts and about the so called threats.

The politics as well the different opinions and 'facts' are shoved down our throats and we are not allowed to have different opinions because different opinions can be 'dangerous'. That is the worst possible climate for an intellectual debate and a serious perspective on science. This is proof of a poor insight as to what type of threats we have to address first.

We cannot shut down our socio-economical structures and industries when we are going to battle climate change. We have to embrace all possibilities, technologies as well as be highly progressive. One has to realize that the world's climate is changing over time and that we cannot blame everything on mankind. The earth has always had different time periods of climate change.

We cannot just neglect or reject all the research on our sun, the oceans as well as our air when we are looking into what is 'causing' this.

I presume that cause & effect in this matter is more complex than what politicians are willing to admit or even understand. The one thing that I am concerned about is that people are excluded from the general media as well as debates simply because they have different opinions from the given facts handed down by the European Parliament as well as the swedish government.

What about Nilsson then? What does he think? Well, he blames the ignorant and clueless politicians of course. He also points our that we have gotten worse products since the alarmism started and that these concepts have weakened our economy.

Has anyone noticed how quiet all environmentalists became after the recent economic recession?

Poetry

2009-01-31T15:18:00.002+01:00

I have not yet found any interesting thing to write about during '09, however, I am sure that I will have something to write about soon. I have been writing more for one of my other blogs and I have been neglecting Eco & Ethics.

I just posted a text in swedish about forests and assemblages on my other blog, but I thought that I could post parts of it here as well. This is a poem by Wendell Berry on the topic of planting trees:

Planting trees av Wendell Berry

In the mating of trees,
the pollen grain entering invisible
the domed room of the winds, survives
the ghost of the old forest
that stood here when we came. The ground
invites it, and it will not be gone.
I become the familiar of that ghost
and its ally, carrying in a bucket
twenty trees smaller than weeds,
and I plant them along the way
of the departure of the ancient host.
I return to the ground its original music.
It will rise out of the horizon
of the grass, and over the heads
of the weeds, and it will rise over
the horizon of men’s heads. As I age
in the world it will rise and spread,
and be for this place horizon
and orison, the voice of the winds.
I have made myself a dream to dream
of its rising, that has gentled my nights.
Let me desire and wish well the life
these trees may live when I
no longer rise in the mornings
to be pleased by the green of them
shining, and their shadows on the ground,
and the sound of the wind in them.

European Parliament seals climate change package

2008-12-17T16:43:00.003+01:00

Now I can understand why the 20 swedish researchers in various fields have had a hard time publishing their article today.

The European Parliament are as of today backing EU's new climate change package which is meant to enable that the EU will live up to its climate targets by 2020:

"a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix."

Looks good on paper but, isn't this rather unrealistic?

A majority of the parliament voted for this package, however, some swedish politicians are critical concerning the fact that the percentage of the greenhouse gas emission reductions are going to be greater "outside" the European Union, than "inside".

Bear in mind that a lot of the economic heavyweights within the European Union are responsible for a lot of industrial emissions. Backing a package like this should mean that the restrictions and regressive actions should concern the European Union and solely members of this political and economical construct.

The parliament are thereby favouring a proposition that means that other countries outside the European Union will be affected more than countries within the European Union itself. This means that poorly developed countries are threatened to reduce their emissions, leading to industrial regression rather than economical progression.

The package also includes new restrictions for automobile emissions. However, these restrictions are less restricting than the guidelines prior to the climate package. They are actually backing something that is more fair than before. We might see an increase of emissions caused by automobile industry due to this package! It is not that unlikely.

Politicians are saying something, but in reality they are doing something completely foreign as to what they are telling us.

An Unpublished Article On The Climate

2008-12-17T12:56:00.004+01:00

20 swedish researchers in various fields have had a hard time getting published recently. Why? you may ask.

Well, they have written about the research on the climate crisis and climate change as something that, generally speaking, has been ignoring all other possible explanations on what causes the "global warming".

There is a general consensus favouring of the carbon emissions thesis. Let me remind you that it is the thesis that has its own fabricated market with carbon "offsets". Moreover, it seems as if the computer generated models of the calculated effects of carbon emissions is a bigger problem than what the IPCC wants to admit or acknowledge.

Perhaps the research community has to go back reading their Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend, because if the general consensus is out to silence parts of a scientific community, then it's simply bad for science and the truth.

If you are a scrutinizing researcher, then you know that it is dangerous to let a single consensus cloud your judgement.

These professors have spent a lifetime researching about geography, mathematics, communications theory, geo science, physics, chemistry, oceanography etc. and the media does not want to publish a perfectly reasonable article demanding science to look in all directions for answers. That gives us an idea how easily ideas can be told, spread and upheld in our society.

A question that arises in my head is: what if peak-oil is a myth as well? The leading governments are treating is as a myth, for if they were to be serious about this then a lot more restrictions on production and the automobile industry would be enforced. The leading politicians are saying something about having to cut back on production and progression, but if they are serious they would be doing a lot more about it, such as legislating cut backs.

The Kyoto Protocol And The Fabricated Market In Carbon

2008-12-17T11:36:00.002+01:00

Dominic Lawson: Kyoto is worthless (and you don't have to be a sceptic to believe that now)

"The truth, however, is that Kyoto, as a means to reduce carbon emissions, has been like Monty Python's parrot, long dead, despite all the protestations to the contrary by its salesmen."

"This fabricated market in carbon has at its heart the UN's Clean Development Mechanism. This is how the EU, which had an obligation under Kyoto to reduce its emissions by two per cent by 2012, has managed to claim success while actually increasing its emissions by 13 per cent. By purchasing so called "offsets" from countries such as China, Britain, for example, proclaims itself a "leader in the fight against climate change"."

A New Industrial Revolution?

2008-12-16T13:42:00.004+01:00

The American biologist Craig Venter, who's been trying to create the first artificial living creature, have started researching on small organisms. I read it in a post on The Economist's "The World in 2009" blog.

He has been working with a bacterium called mycoplasma laboratorium and will apparently be a bacterium stiched together in a lab and contained by a natural bacterium. According to Venter himself, he thinks that he will succeed during 2009. Venter also claims in an interview, that it could be the start of "a new industrial revolution". Is this evidence of a forthcoming shift from chemistry to biology driven industries?

For instance, biology might be the future when it comes to creation of new fuel sources. Moreover, Venter has made a bold statement that his research team has discovered some sort of components that are "far better than any science-fiction scenario that anybody could imagine."

I will try and let you know if I see anything more in this matter. As for now, be sure to have a look at the wiki article on Craig Venter as well as the wiki on mycoplasma laboratorium.

Preservatives & Additives

2008-12-15T15:31:00.002+01:00

In a recent article in DN, Marie-Louise Danielsson-Tham declared that we ought to keep certain additives and preservatives in our provisions. Her arguments are that people simply don't understand why certain additives and preservatives are used and that if we were to remove some of these substances, then there would be an increased risk of dying from eating sausages and other meats.

The debate ought to be more transparent, instead of complaining about the consumer's ignorance, nutritionists need to educate us on what these foreign substances do to our provisions, how they effect us and what would happen if we were to remove certain substances. Thus acknowledging the chemical "grey zones" and teach us about different perspectives on substances and provisions.

Perhaps we ought to eat less meat, or no meat at all? And how do we really now whether or not a substance makes us addicted or not? Danielsson-Tham's condescending manner is not something that other so called experts ought to apply when debating. Her tone and rehtoric do not impress me at all.

WWF Report On Biofuel

2008-11-30T14:50:00.004+01:00

The WWF has published a new report on biofuel. You can find it here. [SWE]

The general consensus is that biofuels cannot replace oil in the long term. The production of biofuel will, if increased, threaten nature and increase the possibility of explotation in countries which have the right type of environment.

There are good and negative aspects when considering the production of biofuels. We cannot simply use biofuels per se as a means of lowering the need for oil as well as reducing the climate gases.

The risks will increase alongside the increase of production. And the lesser nations will essentially be exploited by the more influential nations and corporations. When the market turns lucrative (I'm not critiquing the market itself), the production will affect food prices, cause more illegal forest explotation, destroy rainforests, damage soil from using fertilizers etc. People and local farmers will be driven away due to the expansion of the big corporations wanting to seige market and land as their own. How will the increased production affect the water? It will most likely become more polluted unless someone starts to financially support the need for improved water treatment plants.

The report also raises the question about how important certifications are. They are important, but they also require restrictions and a lot of money. Certifications will mostly benefit the ones who have the funds to maintain them. Certifications are not in themselves enough to make a difference.

The discussion about biofuels have been another binary affair. Those who are against it only seem to discuss the negative aspects and those who are for biofuels only see the pros. Why not flip these views in favour of a dialectic affair? Let the supporting forces disccuss the cons and the ones who are negative about it can discuss the pros. What a totally unrealistic suggestion, but still, it would benefit the general debate.

Lasse Svärd @ DN recognizes that, even though the WWF are biased, that the report is somewhat balanced.

The report also features recommendations on what different countries, corporations and governmental structures (such as the European Union) ought to do in this matter.

Key words:

Certifications
Biofuels
Threats
Recommendation
Forests
Corporations
Investments

Another Post From HAX Concerning Climate & Technology

2008-11-20T19:51:00.004+01:00

The blogger HAX has posted yet another thoughtful and provoking post about the myth-like claim that our societies should start dismantling our industries in order to save our environment.

HAX raises some very good points here. Why should we dismantle our very means that enable technological breakthroughs? The same breakthroughs will help us either solve the problem (if we really are doomed unless we act) or enhance things like: energy conservation, environmental friendly products and recycling- and cleaning management.

It is hard to think outside of the box, but the breakthroughs will come to those that dare to do it.

Greenpeace Tagged City Hall In Stockholm

2008-11-20T18:41:00.007+01:00

Greenpeace tagged City Hall in Stockholm earlier today with a political statement against GMO. With the help of a projector (or some other digital device), their 'throwup' covered (what I think was) the tower's west wall, thus made the building their canvas and the city became a serene and dynamic backdrop to their message. Their message was white and said "Keep our food safe - Stop GMOs" signed with the Greenpeace logo.

Perhaps they should have written "Keep mankind safe" instead.

Sweden's government ought to look into GMO and really sit down and contemplate about this (along with a lot of problems on the agenda). I've come to realize that our government (politicians I mean) have made some terrible decisions recently, decisions that will lead to consequences; consequences which will radically alter our society over time and reshape the foundations of our society as we know it.

I feel that politicians have been lobotomized (kopimi) to vote for or against certain legislations due to fierce lobbying. The larger corporations have the economical means, manpower, lawyers and cunning to silence concerned people and to trick politicians into choosing sides with the economic heavy weights. More recently people in Sweden have been really concerned about laws such as "FRA", as well as another directive our government wants to implement: namely IPRED. The government and our democratically elected politicians have more or less ignored large parts of the swedish people in these issues. Will they neglect information about GMO as well?

Activism come in many forms, however, guerilla projects with projectors, led-throwies, laser tagging and other ways of using light, is not a new phenomenon. For more info on what is possible to do with current technologies you should check out Graffiti Research Lab.

As for GMO, do you want to see all organisms being claimed by shady conglomerates? Do you acknowledge that large corporations hypothetically will be able to buy all the legal rights and means/control for all the organisms (like fruits, vegetables etc.) that we'll eat in the future?

For more info about related topics see:

Culture Jamming & Hacktivism.

FRA
IPRED
Lissabonfördraget

Global Temperatures Lower Than Expected In October?

2008-11-18T14:33:00.005+01:00

HAX posts yet another interesting little write up on global temperatures. If you read swedish you can find it here.

A lot of people are concerned about the status of our planet. However, it seems as if these concerns of ours raise a lot political motifs besides caring about out planet.

Another Perspective On Global Warming

2008-11-13T20:32:00.004+01:00

The danish researcher Henrik Svensmark has an alternate view on the problem of global warming. Check out the documentary here.

Fight Against Monsanto's Marketing Practices

2008-11-12T16:48:00.003+01:00

With their fight against Monsanto's abusive marketing practices, Percy and Louise Schmeiser have given the world a wake-up call about the dangers to farmers and biodiversity everywhere from the growing dominance and market aggression of companies engaged in the genetic engineering of crops.

Percy and Louise Schmeiser

Barack Hussein Obama - Difficult Actions Await You Sir

2008-11-06T22:23:00.004+01:00

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have compiled a massive list on Actions For Restoring America.

After eight years in office, Bush is the least popular president ever. By far. This is due to obvious actions such as the war on terror, the war in Iraq as well as the war in Afghanistan. Most importantly, it is due to the fact that the United States of American came together as a nation in the wrong way. They should have tried to reflect on what had happened and on their own actions in the world. This did not stop and ask themselves why there are people out there who hate their politics and ideals. As this isn't enough, the United States as FAILED CONSIDERABLY in nurturing their own economy and country:

Major economic concerns in the U.S. include national debt, external debt, entitlement liabilities for retiring baby boomers who have already begun withdrawing from their Social Security accounts, corporate debt, mortgage debt, a low savings rate, falling house prices, a falling currency, and a large current account deficit. As of June 2008, the gross U.S. external debt was over $13 trillion,the most external debt of all countries in the world. The 2007 estimate of the United States public debt was 65% of GDP. As of October 1, 2008, the total U.S. federal debt exceeded $10 trillion, about $31,700 per capita. Including unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and similar promised obligations, the government liabilities rise to a total of $59.1 trillion, or $516,348 per household

You should take this information from Wikipedia with a pinch of salt rather than truth. However, these tendencies are real and should be dealt with.

After 9/11, there was no contemplation at all. Instead of looking forward and reevaluate their position + attitude towards the rest of the world, the administration went conservative and chose the aggressive perspective down a path oozing from conservatism and religious norm. Other countries had to be either on their side or against them. This rhetoric and thinking is stale and outdated, they should have been self critical. They should have let their laws and human rights do its job.

A lot of people wanted Barack Obama to become president. Obama is the right choice right now. But will he govern as he preaches? Will he live up to the world's expectations? Will he turn out to be a puppet - A hawk like the rough republicans? Or will he pave the way for a new America, a new America which says NO to enhanced control of society and NO to an increased influence from lobbyists?

On the agenda for the forthcoming president of the United States:

Stop Torture and Abuse

Close Guantanamo and Restore the Rule of Law for Detainees

End and Prohibit the Practice of Extraordinary Rendition

Warrantless spying.

Watch lists.

Freedom of Information - Ashcroft Doctrine.

Monitoring of activists.

DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

Real ID Act.

Abortion gag rule.

Ban all workplace discrimination against sexual minorities by the federal government and its contractors.

Death penalty.

"Faith-based initiatives."

Torture and Abuse

Guantanamo

Extraordinary Rendition

Spying on Americans

Monitoring of activists

Real ID Act

Watch lists

Financial watch lists

Employee databases

Secure Flight

Harmonize privacy rules

Civil Liberties Oversight Board

DNA databases

Freedom of Information

FOIA ombudsman

Scientific freedom

Signing statements

Presidential documents

Human rights treaties

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties

'Special Administrative Measures' for prisoners

Prisoner communications

Crack/Powder Sentencing

Medical marijuana

Discrimination against sexual minorities with federal dollars

The Civil Rights Division

Other Agencies' Civil Rights Enforcement

Federal Racial Profiling

Affirmative action

Rights of the disabled

School harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Benefit plans covering domestic partners

Same-sex couples under Medicaid

Discrimination against sexual minorities in adoption and foster care

Discrimination By the Federal Government and Federal Contractors Against People with HIV

Political protest

Media Consolidation

Network neutrality

Online censorship of soldiers

Fleeting expletives

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

The faith-based initiative

Broaden the mandate of the Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination

Local immigration enforcement

Immigration raids

ID theft prosecutions

Deportation to nations that torture

Detention standards

Expedited removal

Board of Immigration Appeals

Single-sex education

Fair housing for domestic violence victims

Discrimination remedies

Home health care workers

Global gag rule on abortion

Abortion restrictions

Emergency contraceptives

Regulations on birth control and religious refusals

Abortion clinic violence

Affordable birth control

The shackling of pregnant prisoners

By the way, I think he will find the time to save the global environment during his first year...

Other links:

CNN - Obama's First Priority: Fixing The Economy
Economist - America's election: Great Expectations
NY Times - For Obama, No Time to Bask in Victory As He Starts to Build a Transition Team
The Wall Street Journal - Difficult Choices Await New President

Correction Concerning The Article On GMO

2008-11-06T21:48:00.002+01:00

I was sloppy (or tired?) when I wrote the about GMO. and did not post the correct information about who wrote the article I referred to . The article was written by both Maria Hagberg AND Jimmy Sand. Jimmy writes a lot about problems and issues concerning culture, philosophy, society and politics. If you read swedish then you should check out his blog "Strötankar och sentenser".

If he writes something else about GMO or eco related stuff in the future, then I'll post about it.

U.S. Elections

2008-11-04T00:05:00.002+01:00

John McCain or Barack Obama? We will know the outcome during the forthcoming week. Who will be the one to lead a nation in crisis? The United States is facing a recession and the financial crisis is far from over. Will the war on terror come to an end over the next four years?

The United States is facing a probable bankruptcy due to Federal Reserve with their dodgy ways, medicaid, medicare among other highly complex and large economic and sociocultural sequences. This is taken from an article in The Economist:

Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

I am highly sceptical that these 'problems' will be solved unless radical changes were to be made within economics, sociolinguistics, politicals, foreign/national relations, academics and education. However, not changes within systems but changes concerning how people alter or 'hack' complex processes. The US citizens will have to say no to a society based on control by doing something about it.

The world awaits an answer to this question...

GMO

2008-11-03T22:28:00.006+01:00

I recently posted an article related to GMO, highlighting the book Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pamela Ronald, Raoul Admachak published in april 2008.

I have come across an article in swedish with the same controversial outlook as the one which I was focusing on. This stance creates a new perspective and critiques the methodological approach within the eco community and its scepticism against GMO. The article is written by Maria Hagberg from the political party Feminist Initiative (EDIT: AND Jimmy Sand).

Even though the argumentation and rhetoric is based on binary oppositions and choices, one still gets to confront the idea that GMO isn't 'bad' or 'evil' per se. She mentions the problem with large corporations and their profitable market approach through investment in chemicals - they are deliberatly blocking positive advancements of the eco community and even GMO. Other problems that are mentioned includes: the issues of patents, 'third-world countries' with their needs, as well as ethics & trading. Be sure to read the criticism from Kathleen McCaughey, GMO-spoke sperson @ Greenpeace and Lars Igeland of Miljöförbundet Jordens Vänner. The chemical market and the GMO market seem to be intertwined:

The Monsanto Company is an American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as "Roundup". Monsanto is also by far the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed, holding 70%–100% market share for various crops. Agracetus, owned by Monsanto, exclusively produces Roundup Ready soybean seed for the commercial market. In March 2005, it finalized the purchase of Seminis Inc, making it also the largest conventional seed company in the world. It has over 18,800 employees worldwide, and an annual revenue of USD$8.563 billion reported for 2007

Oh the problem of patents... haven't we heard this before?. This problem has to be addressed and not looked down upon! Have a look at this Pirate Party related text on the patent system:

An abolished patent system

Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. The latest example of this is the bird flu virus, where not even the threat of a global pandemic can make research institutions forgo their chance to make a killing on patents.

The Pirate Party has a constructive and reasoned proposal for an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. It would not only solve these problems, but also give more money to pharmaceutical research, while still cutting public spending on medicines in half. This is something we would like to discuss on a European level.

Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries).

Europe has all to gain and nothing to lose by abolishing patents outright. If we lead, the rest of the world will eventually follow.

Moreover, Later on in the article Greenpeace seems to be positive about the technology of genetics but still criticizing the 'unnatural' GMO.

"The debate on GMO" was published in Göteborgs Fria Tidning (which aims to be non-profitable and free from ads) and can be read (Swedish) at Jimpan's blog.

Göteborgs Fria Tidning

Combating Climate Change

2008-11-03T17:27:00.004+01:00

Science and sci-fi come together in the most radical forms when scientists want to hack and modify the earh's environment on a large scale.

I read another article from Wired, this time about geoengineering, which Wired describes as:

the large-scale, deliberate modification of the planet to counteract the consequences of ever-increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gas.

The article is called Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change? and it's from 2007.

Wired Article - The Year's [2007] 10 Craziest Ways to Hack the Earth

2008-11-03T16:59:00.004+01:00

I've just read an article from Wired which deals with last year's 10 craziest ideas to hack the earth. Hacking nature is here meant to work as an analogy to hacking technologies.

Scientists have come up with extreme -- some might say crazy -- schemes to counteract global warming. This year saw the most radical geo-engineering ideas yet: man-made volcanoes, orbiting mirror fleets and ocean re-engineering to cool the planet and absorb carbon dioxide.

Some say the extreme temperatures predicted for the near future call for extreme measures. Others say the solutions could be worse than the problem. In increasing order of unorthodoxy, here are the 10 craziest geo-engineering schemes of 2007.

I like the fact that at least one of these ideas (vertical farming) actually enhances our perspective on both nature and our environemnt. However, a lot of them are hypothetically even worse than the 'problems' themselves. The article is a must read and it can be found here: The Year's 10 Craziest Ways to Hack the Earth.

Hack the status quo!

Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food

2008-10-29T19:42:00.012+01:00

Although I have not read it, I immediately became suspicious when I saw information about the book Tomorrow's Table. Is there a way to combine genetic engineering (GMO) and ecological agriculture? According to Waldemar Ingdahl @ the swedish think tank Eudoxa the very resistance towards genetics is not good for farmers. I suspect that he means 'not good' in terms of economic aspects, however, there seems to be more to this than what I expected.

Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food by Pamela C. Ronald & R. W. Adamchak, bring forth these somewhat controversial stances, or are they really something else? One of the authors is a genetic engineer, the other one an expert in organic agriculture. These perspectives can come together if their hypothetical relation is reevaluated and together they set out on a mission exploring new potentials and perspectives on the future (potential) need for genetically modified food.

The arguments for this are that the world's population is growing at an increasing rate. The world's assets cannot be distributed equally among its habitants, which creates the need to come up with ways to produce more food and avoiding financial difficulties that has been a problem for the market dealing with ecological food. These markets are currently being targeted by stronger markets, larger corporations and conglomerates.

If we are to believe Waldemar Ingdahl, the demand for ecological food is believed to have reached its peak. This in itself seems to be strange but considering that the market shifts and governments decide whether or not farmers are to produce more ecological provisions, the idea seems plausible. At this point in time, there is a small percentage of people who buy ecologically produced provisions and objects. The masses are either hindered due to economical problems or the fact that not all regions of the world can provide their citizens with this type of western luxury.

Ingdahl points out that institutions and organisations that are promoting ecological brands are fiercly against genetic modified agriculture. Genetics has from the start been taboo, which is strange considering the fact that chemicals have been allowed as fertilizers - so why the negativity against genetics? I see the argument as very misguided, or I might perhaps just miss Ingdahl's point.

It may have something to do with the fact that many believe that we should not alter nature. This is a fundamental aspect of this issue, although it shouldn't entirely be the only concern in this matter. The authors argue that the resistance against genetics is not good for the farmers nor the consumers. They also claim that genetics could be benifitial for ecological farming once it has been approved of. This thought is actually quite new for me since I have been negative to genetically engineered food before. I have been concerned about the potentially harmful or undocumented bi products that may be created in the process of genetically altering crops. I thought that the farmers and scientists have not been able to:

justify the means as to why genetics is needed in this area, guarantee that they are not any 'side effects' to modified crops, show that the genetically engineered crops will not force 'wild crops' into extinction, and give reasonable explanations as to why the ecological market needs genetics.

Although I am glad that I have seen this new perspective, I am still concerned about the farmers' involvement in this. I prefer local markets over other types of markets and the eco markets also have to deal with the fact that they have to move around large amounts of food and objects. Another problem is that the foundation of the GMO type of research is highly centralised - big corporations' own the patens and research and are too economically driven which means that their ethical commitments are ignored or rendered obsolete. This means that genetics will be highly beneficial for the big actors on a global market rather than the farmers on a local level. Here's a description from Amazon:

By the year 2050, Earth's population will double. If we continue with current farming practices, vast amounts of wilderness will be lost, millions of birds and billions of insects will die, and the public will lose billions of dollars as a consequence of environmental degradation. Clearly, there must be a better way to meet the need for increased food production.
Written as part memoir, part instruction, and part contemplation, Tomorrow's Table argues that a judicious blend of two important strands of agriculture--genetic engineering and organic farming--is key to helping feed the world's growing population in an ecologically balanced manner. Pamela Ronald, a geneticist, and her husband, Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer, take the reader inside their lives for roughly a year, allowing us to look over their shoulders so that we can see what geneticists and organic farmers actually do. The reader sees the problems that farmers face, trying to provide larger yields without resorting to expensive or environmentally hazardous chemicals, a problem that will loom larger and larger as the century progresses. They learn how organic farmers and geneticists address these problems.
This book is for consumers, farmers, and policy decision makers who want to make food choices and policy that will support ecologically responsible farming practices. It is also for anyone who wants accurate information about organic farming, genetic engineering, and their potential impacts on human health and the environment.

I am still not convinced, although their agenda forced me to think in new ways, which I am grateful for. I may have to read this book some time.

Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food

Paraquat

2008-10-23T20:50:00.006+02:00

In the latest issue of Gaudeamus (5/2008 Stockholm University), Michael Tedengren (Professor in Systems ecology(?)) says that the European Union is planning to legalise similar substances as Paraquat. Paraquat was allowed within the European Union in 2004:

"The European Union allowed Paraquat in 2004. Sweden, supported by Denmark, Austria, and Finland, brought the European Union commission to court. On 11 July 2007 the court annulled the directive authorising Paraquat as an active plant protection substance."[http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070045en.pdf]

What is Paraquat?

Paraquat is a chemical substance that can be used as a pesticide against fungus etc when growing stuff, stuff which we in the western world take for granted, such as fruit. Paraquat is highly poisonous and has been used by farmers in countries such as Costa Rica to spray banana fields.

"It is non-selective, which means it kills a wide range of annual grasses and broad-leaved weeds and the tops of established perennial weeds.

It is very fast-acting.

It is rain-fast within minutes of application.

It becomes biologically inactive upon contact with soil."[]

Paraquat has been devastating to ecosystems and especially to people wherever it has been used. According to the interview with Tedengren, since the nineties, more than 200 people have died yearly in Costa Rica from being exposed to Paraquat. The people who sell the chemicals to the farmers trick them into using more chemicals that what is needed. I mean come on, that is really greedy and stupid. It is probably unethical from every single perspective except for an economical perspective maintained by the people who deal with pesticides.

Moveover, conglomerates such as Dole and Chiquita apparently prevent farmers from shipping their ecologically cultivated bananas. They are conservatively trying to control the market and they also want to control the channels of profit.

I think that the general consumer and citizen should be more concerned about two phenomena: Lobbying & Capitalism. If we want to 'save the world' (it sounds so abstract and stoic don't you think?), we ought to try and turn the market around as well as heighten our awareness concerning what laws and restrictions our politicians are trying to sneak past us every single day. The things they try to sneak past us are often connected to money and other stuff that will benefit corporations rather than us citizens.

Let 'Capitalism' find money, capital, etc. in areas that are less hazardous for the environment. Someone ought to find a way to produce less, save more energy, consume less as well as making it all more profitable. If someone can spawn this type of revolution, it will ultimateely have a huge effect on the global economy.

(Two) Ways Of Looking At Peak Oil

2008-10-14T16:04:00.009+02:00

Are you among those people who think about how much fossil fuel we are allowed to use or a person who thinks about how much fossil fuel we can use? Perhaps you are not into any of the views at all?

My point is that we should be concerned with all perspectives on peak oil and activism. Should we centralize or decentralize our efforts of saving the environment? Or might it be better if governments deal with these issues globally and that the citizens (consumers) deal with the problem of climate control on a local level?

There is an interesting little write up over at Copyriot where these issues are brought up. The blog is in swedish, so if you know swedish then I suggest that you read the blog post.

Other related posts are:

Ytterligare tre framtidsord (oljekrönet, transportåldern, avgrunda)
Brist och överflöd i fossilsamhället
Koldioxiden i konsten och konsten i koldioxiden

McCain / Palin And "Clean Coal"

2008-09-04T15:00:00.006+02:00

Since McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice President candidate, the US has been waiting for her to accept the nomination and to adress the nation and the Republican party at their little Republican gathering down in New Orleans.

Palin spoke about renewable energy, which is something a modern and (sane?) politician has to do in this era. But she also mentioned something I could not quite understand. She told the American people she wanted to give funds to "clean coal"...

What is "clean coal"? Isn't clean coal an oxymoron? Can you sell an idea or arguments by sugar coating it with fancy adjectives in front of the concept? The next thing they'll tell us is that they are going to have "clean death penalties", "clean warfare", "clean project housing" "clean garbage" etc.

Palin, I would say that "clean coal" partially is what I would call diamonds. You cannot get the dirt and pollution out of coal when you use it to produce energy. Yet.

High-Tech Living – Low-Tech Recycling

2008-06-08T21:33:00.001+02:00

Where do you dump your electronic trash? If you live in the western world you probably recycle stuff like soda cans, paper, bottles etc. But do you recycle your old TV? Do you toss out old equipment somewhere else than at a recycle station? And most important of all, do you know how much money there is to make on high-tech trash?

I’ve wanted to write this article for a long time now. Some months ago I read an article in National Geographic, the January number, and there are a lot of facts and interesting things to know about where the mountain of trash ends up. I had the idea that I wanted this article to be long and informative, but at this point I realize that Carroll’s article is well written and include graphics which makes it easy for one to follow. Anyway, I'll give you a short introduction before I give you a link to the article.

The article by Chris Carroll included a report from Accra, Ghana, where young people salvage scrap metal from electronics etc. I did not know that a lot of TV sets, computers, screens etc. aren’t recycled in the west, but in countries that have not got the money to take care of its own waste. Curcuit boards and anything you can imagine that is based on electronics can be found in many poor regions around the world. Kids start fires and burn away plastic to salvage the metals that are used for wiring, toxic fumes spread and the young boys (and perhaps girls?) sit there by the fires and breath these fumes. Moreover, electronics contain a lot of hazardous materials that are harmful for our nature.

Electronics that used to be state of the art are now brought to the third world to be reused and recycled. Some of the large, (and I do mean really large) amounts of waste and units are recycled domestically in the western world. However, a lot of things are less expensive to recycle in the third world. Industrial countries, like the U.S. for example, have the right equipment to take care of the recycling efficiently and properly, lessening the stress on both human beings and out nature. However, it is too expensive. They cannot compete with the price in countries like Ghana and China.

Carroll writes that in the United States it is “estimated that more than 70 percent of discarded computers and monitors, and over 80 percent of TVs, eventually end up in landfills, despite a growing number of state laws that prohibit dumping of e-waste, which may leak lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, and other toxics into the ground”. What a waste of produced goods.

Take your time to read the article over here: High-Tech Trash

Picture gallery

Green Washing

2008-04-24T00:07:00.004+02:00

I read an article in today's "Metro Teknik" about a, for me, new concept called Green Washing.

A lot of corporations use the wave of concern for the world in their ads and commercials. There are numerous examples of companies that are not that concerned about the earth in the long run. Several companies spend a lot of money on things that damage the world rather than things that can save it.

Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. The term Green sheen has similarly been used to describe organisations which attempt to appear that they are adopting practices benefical to the environment.

Learn more about this at:

Green Washing Index - home of the world’s first online interactive forum that allows consumers to evaluate real advertisements making environmental claims.

Badbuster - tags companies and brand names in your web browser with a rating. Don't let big companies ads fool you that they spend a lot of money to aid our environment.

Nutrition Pills Linked To Cancer And Heart Disease

2008-04-17T13:20:00.005+02:00

A few days ago, one of the leading newspapers in Sweden had an article about vitamin and nutrition pills. But it was a critical article.

A Danish study shows that high concentrations of vitamins A, E and β-carotene are linked to heart disease and even cancer. The dosages in the hundreds of different pills and nutritional products on the market are highly concentrated and are said to upset the natural balance in the body. We cannot use more "building stones" than what we individually need in order to survive.

Of course the tests have probably been done with a lot higher concentrations than normal. However, we all have our own amount of nutritional intake each day. It is at least something one needs to consider if it is needed or not.

If you think that using more pills are better for your body than to eat more fruit, think again. There seems that each individual might have their own specific levels in accordance with the body's own balance. To much of the good becomes bad for you and less of what is considered to be good is bad for you.

If you think that you need more of some substance or mineral, talk with your local doctor or someone who knows about these things and who can conduct properly structured test. But if you just feel a bit out of focus, tired and stressed out, you generally probably need to eat better food and fruit, more exercise and spend more hours sleeping.

I'm going to eat more fruit from now on.

Plans For 2008

2008-01-18T12:22:00.000+01:00

2008 will hopefully be another year with a lot of articles for you to read critically.

I have been thinking about what I want to write about this year and which issues and topics that are likely to be dealt with. One of the first articles will be about E-waste, which National Geographic recently wrote about in their January issue.

Millions of electronic devices need to be replaced yearly. Where do they end up? What do we do with them? Is scrap hazardous for the environment and dangerous for us? Is it a lucrative business?

I will look into these questions and the material from National Geographic and try to write a short summary on the key factors concerning E-waste.

2007 - The Year of the Concept 'Climate Smart'

2007-12-23T14:35:00.000+01:00

2007 was the year when the climate crisis awareness exploded and got exploited by the Swedish media. The media created the positive concept 'climate smart' but was used as a 'negative' means to make us consume even more. The 'climate smart' products and ethical aspects got shoved down our throats and marketed in almost the same way as other products. The values and words was forced upon us once again. There was a lot of talk but did we act on this information?

2007 was the year when Christmas sales rocketed in Sweden. It seems as if we talk about being 'climate smart' but actually aren't. I think people use the values while speaking to heighten their own egos, but generally they don't follow their own principles. This is how society in the western world works. We have have all been a part of this ethical creation. It is a paradox that we have more money than ever before but need to consume less as never before. Money is still king and I think that this won't change next year. If salaries increase, if people have even more money, they will probably consume more next year as well. Why not label ourselves as 'climate morons' right away, who are we kidding really?

Peak oil and CO2

Judging by the information I have access to (the media) I think we have reached 'peak oil'. This means that we have to start creating alternate sources for electricity and use more funds for research and product development. Oil is not the future. From what I have learned about other sources of energy is that there should be a mix of sources rather than developing one alternative. The different techniques have different pros and cons and the governments need to figure out which one as best suitable during the next couple of years.

When it comes to CO2 almost all research claims that CO2 levels (380 parts per million according to National Geographic) will increase a lot more in the future. 50% of today's C02 comes from the U.S., Europe and Japan so why are we lecturing other nations and parts of the world?

If scientists find a way to let out more heat from planet earth then this would be a good start. I would really enjoy if someone argued for protecting the universe from our heat emissions and waste. The waste and heat needs to go somewhere but I doubt that the media will be critical about dumping it all out in our universe. And if the media won't bother to write about this then a lot of us won't bother to think.

We constantly neglect our own thinking and thoughts. To much information about our climate makes me look the other way. I encourage everyone to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. No one should be forced to belong to the ethical framework of 'climate smart'.

'Climate control', 'climate smart', 'climate crisis', climate this and climate that. I care but I can't be bothered.

2008 - The Year of Panic and Fear?

Chiquita's Death Squads Kills And Tortures People

2007-11-24T16:07:00.000+01:00

I read last thursday in Metro about some of Chiquita's activities in Colombia.

A number of colombian families have sued Chiquita because the company's death squads(!) have murdered and tortured their relatives.

The victims were killed and tortured by at least one of the infamous colombian paramilitary groups, the AUC, which receive funds(!) from Chiquita. Other victims have sued Chiquita because they might have been funding paramilitary groups since the 90's. Chiquita have also armed these groups with the goal to retain control over the areas where they cultivate bananas.

Chiquita have admitted that they have funded the AUC.

If you want to read more about the protection payments to paramilitary groups be sure to read the wikipedia article. If Chiquita have admitted that they have funded paramilitary groups then there is some truth to these claims.

Is Ecological Food Healthier Than Conventional Food?

2007-11-24T15:43:00.000+01:00

I believe that ecological food is better for myself and the environment, but it is another thing to prove it. I am not a scientist nor do I have the expertise to read scientific material concerning ecological food. Where do I turn to get information? I turn to the media.

Now, the media are not obliged to report the truth. They report about what make money for them. How do I best interpret information I read in the media? What are my strategies to deal with texts in the media?

My initial stance is often critical, but not always. I read an article about ecological food today and I found myself liking what I just had read. Ecological food was claimed to be healthier than conventional food. I thought, ok, I believe that this might be the case. However, how exactly does the media present the information?

The articles I am concerned about were published by DN (Swedish newspaper) (concerning ecological food) & (concerning toxics in food.

How can I look at these articles with a more critical eye? I have started to read public blogs about what they say about the articles. I believe that it is a good idea to experiment a bit with your pressupositions and beliefs, to rock the boat a little. Thought experiments can be good when you want to get into other systems of belief. It might even make you more critical about something you otherwise find sound.

The problem I have with these articles is that it does not make any sense to publish information about preliminary results even if they are scientifical. Another thing that might be the case is that the European Union did not fund this research. Some even think that it might be a lame interpretation/translation taken from a press release. I find this to be very interesting when other people than the media question that which is published. I do not want the media to get away with shady journalism. I do not want to be tricked into believing things or to shape my expectations and stance with false information.

I recommend that you all try to find other posts and articles about that which has been published in the media environment. It is important that you try and shape your way of thinking about what you read in the media or anywhere else. I believe that this view on the matter evolves your thought.

So, even if you like ecological food, you ought to look at the scientific material that is rewritten in the media and search for the right source and find the right approach to interpret the new information.

Green Dreams

2007-11-04T02:57:00.000+01:00

Have you seen National Geographic's article "Biofuels: Green Dreams"? I read it in the paper version of the magazine. However, I think that the same article can be found here.

Abstract:

"Producing fuel from corn and other crops could be good for the planet–if only the process didn't take a significant environmental toll. New breakthroughs could make a difference."

Supply And Demand

2007-10-03T21:27:00.000+02:00

I found myself looking for a certain protein bar today. I could not locate the product at first and I got frustrated. This might be because I did not have any lunch prior to today’s exam and when I came out from the exam, I needed something to eat before dinner.

Why did I get frustrated when I at first did not come across a certain product? And what happens the day this product does not exist anymore?

There are a lot of products at your local place for food, ethical and non-ethical – ecological and non-ecological, but most of them give you energy. There are fruits, sandwiches and other more nutritious altenatives but my mind told me to buy the protein bar.

This behaviour is part of the myth we are upholding every day. The myth is that we get happier if we consume more, and this myth is proclaimed throughout the media, most corporations and markets.

I really should pick whatever I want to eat. This is not a big problem. I bought this certain bar today (generally I try to eat more healthy and nutitious food), but the problem is that I create a need for this product, and when I cannot find it I have to settle for the next best thing. But what happens when I cannot find the next best thing?

We need to stop allowing the media and advertizing industry to call us consumers. We need to stop living in this myth that is around us and that is infesting our societies. People who KNOW how language works need to tell us to stop upholding this myth.

One day you will not find the products you bought the other day. One day you will not find your favourite protein bar and a year later you will not find your gallon of petrol. After that you will not find your new computer, you will have to look real hard to even get a hold of certain things that we – the western world – have created a need for. This need is upheld because we use our money to buy goods and products from a few big actors on the market.

How can we desperately cling onto luxury and commodities? I tell you why, our way of living is possible because the western world vastly exploit foreign regions and outsource dirty jobs to Asia and other remote parts of the world. We do not produce the majority of our products, we do not take care of our waste good enough and we spend more money on maintaining the myth than we spend on cancer research or battling the depletion of our natural resources.

Cash, dollar dollar bill ya’ll.

Fish For Dinner?

2007-08-22T10:57:00.000+02:00

WWF has come up with a mini guide on which fish to avoid due to enviromental issues. This guide is meant to alert consumers on what fish to avoid and to try and make consumers change the market.

WWF urges us to avoid:

Lemon Sole
Shark
Halibut
Salmon (wild)
Marlin
Angler
Small Halibut
Stingray
Shrimp (tropical, farmed and wild)
Plaice
Long Flunder
Swordfish
Tuna
Codfish
Tounge (I do not know what this is)
Eel

For a more in depth and detailed version of their list please visit WWF or if you are swedish WWF.SE

WWF mission statement:

"To stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:

conserving the world's biological diversity
ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable
promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption"

A New Pesticide Has Been Introduced For Use On Swedish Strawberries

2007-06-14T14:07:00.000+02:00

A new pesticide has been introduced for use on swedish strawberries.

The pesticide is called Signum and is introduced before the European Union even has finished its report and analysis. I wonder why the pesticide has been allowed during a period between 24th may and 18th october 2007 when the European Union's evaluation is not ready yet.

It even becomes more urgent to let people know about it since a danish evaluation has come up with the possibility that the pesticide can affect or even hurt yet to be born babies. What about our small children? What about older women and men? What about our environment? What about our water?

Astrid Mårtensson at the swedish chemical inspection has been involved in clearing this pesticide. One of her arguments as an chemical inspector (she has to be one when working at a chemical inspection right?) is that swedish farmers have to keep up with competition abroad. Wait a minute, shouldn't the chemical inspection look at what is best for the environment first of all, and stop focusing on the farmers' economies and market value?

This right here is why we need to distribute money to farmers who produce strawberries, as well as other things, as naturally as possible. Avoiding pesticides might be impossible in certain areas but surely not all of them, if they need financial help then I think they should be granted money if they have an ecological production. We cannot have a sloppy inspection, our chemical inspection should be stern but fair, and focus on our citizens health rather than the farmers' economical situation. I wish we have means to stop fungus or insects from ruining our products other than pesticides, however, there seems to be a long way to go before we can see severe changes. We do not need a sloppy chemical inspection, they need to be stern and fair and look at the whole picture instead of just focusing on the market.

Climate Crisis Q&A

2007-05-27T11:54:00.000+02:00

One of the most respected news sources in Sweden has recently published an article dealing with some of the questions readers raise in the global warming debate. DN relies on the following sources: Nature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – all filtered through IPCC. I thought that it would be interesting to do a quick rundown of the latest Q&As related to global warming and environmental issues. I am going to provide very short answers because I am not in the mood to elaborate, if you want the full answers I suggest you go and look through some of the sources mentioned above. Although I have short answers I try and give you the overall notion of the answers.

Why do you just let one side state their opinion? There are researchers who do not believe that mankind affects the climate.

All published sources that DN relies on are sources that almost all share the same view and has passed through IPCC. One of IPCCs functions is to collect and present the paradigm-like views and research.

Have you seen “The Great Climate Swindle” documentary?

Apparently one of the sources in the film; Carl Wunsch is extremely misquoted and has in an open letter declared that he was tricked by the producers of the documentary. So from DNs point of view it is not a decent form of documentary partly because of this and what it supports.

The results from satellites and weather balloons do not support the climate researchers arguments supporting today’s leading perspective on global warming.

The results used to bug the researchers but it was because of the analyses. The problem has been dealt with.

The planet has been warm before if we look throughout its history.

Yes of course. Researcher Milutin Milankovic both believes and shows that earth’s motion around its axis have three different cycles. These variations affect the temperature on our Earth. Then you have other contributing aspects such as the amounts of snow and ice, the oceans' temperatures and sediments that contain a lot of ‘stuff’ which when released into the atmosphere contribute to raising the temperature on our planet.

Today’s global warming is due to variations in the sun’s radiation.

No, the sun’s radiation can only explain a small part of the global warming.

I do not have the energy to deal with the last question in the article; I suggest that if you understand Swedish you should read it yourselves instead. When I look back on what I have written and the overall mood and the way I declare what the news source has published then I can see a lack of inspiration from my part. This is due to several things.

My concern is that the different ‘perspectives’ seem to leave out the good stuff from their oppositional point of views. Surely all data on anything ‘environmental’ should be a part of the explanation on why the planet is becoming warmer. Shutting down some views and supporting others can make us miss essential stuff or give us an attitude that we should brush aside everything that has not been allowed by the IPCC. This attitude which is gained by choosing sides and make us force it upon other people is dangerous. It becomes environmental bullying - science and religious aspects merge into a ready made package. Science has to rid these elements out of its nucleus structure, otherwise we will yet again see science diminish and we will face The Crisis of the European Sciences.

Animal Mass Extinction Thought Experiment

2007-05-25T23:48:00.000+02:00

I was talking with a thoughtful friend the other day, one whom I have come to know through philosophy studies. We discussed the possibility that some species may face mass extinction in the future and if or why mankind should do anything about it. He especially pointed out some oddities concerning mankind’s values in relation to animal mass extinction.

First of all let us take a moment and engage ourselves in a thought experiment: Species number one, a monkey living in a remote area of Africa faces extinction. Species number two, a cranky spider roaming about in Australia also faces extinction. Let us presume that mankind have the resources to save one of these species from mass extinction. The initial questions I now ask are: Which species should we save? Why should we save that particular species rather than the other? What are the good arguments for saving that species?

Did you choose to save the monkey? How did you make your decision? What were your good arguments? I did not mention that the spider in my example might be more beneficial to the environment and ultimately to mankind. Let me rephrase the questions. Should we really try and save species at all? How do people intend to choose between saving a particular species rather than one that is either unknown or seen as a hazard to the environment?

Man is not the measure of all things – animals have faced mass extinction long before man even appeared on the scene. Even if we blame ourselves, tell people that we are trying to save species for generations to come or proclaim that the entire eco system will collapse if certain species die, there is no way we can ‘make it right’ and do natures job for her. We do kill animals, we do pollute and threaten eco systems but why choose to tell the world that we ought to save a certain species and then ignore hundred and thousands of other species? Perhaps we should not try to save certain species. We should instead try and save ourselves by dealing with our problems and face reality.

We should ask ourselves if it is really more important for us that certain species survive than what it is for the environment. We do not have the resources to save all the animals that affect the eco system, our values are not entirely rational when we choose our rescue missions and we inaccurately heighten our capacity as benefactors to the environment. We face a grim future, we are staring it right in the eye and we cannot really ‘feel’ its consequences. The efforts are missing the bigger picture – we might have to let certain species go nonetheless because they face extinction with or without us helping them to survive. Governments should deal with problems concerning the environment on a large scale rather than politicise it. However, I am not saying that we should stop researching about the environment and species locally, but we have to ask ourselves about our own values and arguments when we engage in such activities.

Now let me come back to the thought experiment and try to make some witty comment about it. I would want to save the spider, because a cranky spider can be much more interesting to look at when it is indeed cranky. It is more likely that it may be easier to save because one might be able to breed it in labs placed in the spider’s natural environment. It is probably a great benefactor around the country side, scaring people and stray cats as it roams about. The monkey is simply too hard to keep alive, it will cost so much money, time and effort. It will keep on eating leaves on trees that we need now when we are going to breath less of our much needed oxygen in the future. If we have evolved from monkeys, then evolution has moved on for a reason regardless of what we know about it.

My point here is that I call for a re-evaluation of one’s handed down values. Transcend these values by asking yourself the right questions, your answers will lead the way to a new individual understanding, once there you will be ready to adopt values in accordance with your new found understanding.

Al Gore's Political Past

2007-04-11T22:41:00.000+02:00

"All Gore does not care about the environment" wrote one of Metro's columnists today. I figured that the column looked promosing and gave it a go.

How do you cover up something? Well, the easiest way is to get a blanket and flick it over the thing you want to cover up. A more complicated immaterial object or notion such as "pride", "political persona" or perhaps something that might be called 'truth', would require a more fancy cover up than your ordinary blanket.

Let us presume for a moment that the overall truth of this column, it’s historicity, is somewhat accurate or in some way meaningful. Let us conduct a little thought experiment, just for kicks, drop your guard for a minute and receive some written environmental punches from Gore’s political past. Under Gl Aore’s vice presidency his responsibility for environmental issues led to:

* The bald people who own the companies that chop up forests in the U.S. were allowed to cut down the oldest trees in forests, once protected by law and then sold the lumber below the market price probably to, let me take a wild guess, rich companies that produce fancy furniture.

* The people who breed cattle got their pasture expenses lowered. Making it easier to breed, slaughter, and send the stuff to starving fat people all over the U.S… let us try and make CO2 levels drop again, why don’t we produce more meat, more meat! Build meat castles from the damn cows, move the castles to the Hamptons and order some decent American rich folk move in. The deal comes with your customized private moat.

* The government - you know the official name for that place with the old men who run political tings – made it easier for the sugar industry in Florida by giving them more money. A lucrative synthetic business that live on making consumers addicted… They obviously need more money!

* The sugar industry is ruining the everglades, but hey, it’s just a big swamp with dangerous gators, very very dangerous, and they smell too. The hell with it. It does not have anything to do with the environment!

* The national parks where animals and plants once could be animals and plants and just do plant business or whatnot, those parks were opened up for legal hunting and fishing. Well, those pink salmons are in the way so they had to make it legal so more people would go there and litter and consume! The bears were doing a poor job. They are just incompetent and lay around all winter doing nothing.

* When researchers asked for money to do research on solar energy, their funds were decreased. The sun will never die! someone said. It's an absolute truth, handed down by the almighty Bob, the bloke from the other research department, the one with the fancy logo, which would get the deal and do me a movie about the environment and bet on the CO2 thing, all just to cover up me ever writing this article.

Now for you who have seen the film, the one where Gore talks about a decent goal, a thoughtful arrow indicator on where we are heading and how we are polluting the world – his political background completely shatters any impact or credibility it could have produced (atleast for someone). It becomes Gore’s protective shield against what people can accuse him of, it is his get out of jail free card, since environmental politics in the U.S. still is controversial and could hardly be mentioned in a room with hardcore industrial guns. The film can be seen as a cover up, it definitely gets a new expanded meaning with the background of his.

How much does your past affect what you strive for or believe in now? A big deal I reckon, especially if one’s past gets covered up or lost in the very political speech of the present stance.
The cheap shots and lame attempts of irony in this article will not cover up the focus of this article – but nevertheless… What is there left, when one now speak truths and uphold other truths but in the past have caused other truths that are in direct conflict with the very truths you tell, which also effect the fuelling of our doom?

I end this article by borrowing a catchy phrase from Henry Rollins... Dear Al Gore, You put the Mental in EnvironMental.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-12T14:34:00.000+01:00

The Great Global Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin for Channel 4 is a documentary on the subject that I have written a lot of posts about for a while now, namely global warming. However, this is a fundamental counterweight for a lot of views held by the environmentalists, media and scientists that still push the CO2 explanation on global warming. This is a must see for all of you who are willing to change your viewpoint in a radical way.

"Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

Channel 4

Are We Changing Planet Earth?

2007-03-06T12:12:00.000+01:00

If you have not watched the BBC documentary "Are We Changing The Planet" then I suggest that you see it and tell your friends about it. Are.We.Changing.Planet.Earth.BBC-ONE
Be sure to check "An Inconvenient Truth" as well. It is very important that you spread the information on to people just like yourself, the earth's environment is changing fast and radically and I think that it is going to be essential for mankind to immediately adress this and make changes during the years to come.

An Inconvenient Truth

2007-02-20T00:13:00.000+01:00

If you have not seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet then you should make it your top priority to watch it as soon as possible. Head over to Climatecrisis to learn more about what you can do for the environment, you should focus a considerable amount of attention on the ten things you can do. Read the PDF here.

Politicians got a wake up call from scientific data on global warming.

2007-02-03T13:33:00.000+01:00

World leaders urged to act on global warming study

2007-01-29T21:37:00.000+01:00

Here are some paragraphs that I have gathered from the article: World leaders urged to act on global warming study

"PARIS (Reuters) - World governments should take heed of the most wide-ranging scientific assessment so far of a human link to global warming and agree prompt action to slow the trend, the chairman of a U.N. climate report said on Monday."

"The report draws on research by 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries and has taken six years to compile. It is unlikely there will be major changes between the draft and the final conclusions, according to diplomatic sources."

"Thirty-five industrial nations have signed up to the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, capping emissions of carbon dioxide."

"The United States pulled out in 2001, arguing Kyoto would cost jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from goals for 2012. Still, President Bush said last week that climate change was a "serious challenge"."

"The draft report says there is at least a 90 percent probability that human activities are to blame for most of the warming in the past 50 years. The previous report, in 2001, rated the probability at just 66 percent. "

"The U.N. report, the fourth of its kind, is expected to foresee temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 8.1 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a "best estimate" of 3C (5.4F) rise."

U.S. needs to improve ethanol transport

2007-01-17T11:36:00.000+01:00

Just days after Bush had opened his mouth on the issue of ethanol, the head of a U.S. ethanol industry group said on Tuesday that "The United States will need to make big improvements in shipping ethanol from the U.S. heartland -- perhaps even building pipelines from the Midwest to the coasts -- to transport the fuel to markets".

Logical move. Stategy: when a government leader (or any politician who has somekind of influence on democratic practice and economy) say something positive about something you are researching or marketing, you proceed with a decleration that it will take resources to develop an infra structure or just that you strategically want to be a part of the scientific advancement. The logical move is thus a political outcry calling for money. Here is the article from Reuters.com / Science:

U.S. needs to improve ethanol transport

...the industry has fallen behind.
...rail and trucking must be improved.
...I don't think you could do it without some sort of government help.
...shipping ethanol on new lines dedicated fully to ethanol could ease environmental concerns because the fuel, unlike oil or gasoline, is quickly biodegradable.

Bush to address global warming in annual speech

2007-01-16T22:56:00.000+01:00

This article on global warming comes from Reuters.com /Science: Bush to address global warming in annual speech.

By reading this article I find that the U.S. on the record will promote a new approach when it comes to issues related to global warming. What the government then does off the record is a completely different thing, however foreign politicians have probably talked some sense into Bush. Here are a few interesting things taken from the article:

Bush has not:

...dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

On the issue of global warming, Bush has:

...pushed a series of initiatives aimed at encouraging the development of alternative energy sources such as hydrogen and ethanol.
...called U.S. addiction to foreign oil a serious problem that required more spending on new technologies.
...acknowledged last summer that humans exacerbate the problem.

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Bush said he was commited to:

..."promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency, and at the same time do a better job of protecting the world's environment."

Speculation:

...the possibility that Bush will unveil a shift on climate policy.

Sucralose and Its Unknown Effects - Hazardous?

2006-12-18T00:30:00.000+01:00

So, today I heard on the swedish news (http://svt.se/) that The National Food Administration actually accepted Sucralose as a synthetic sweetener in provisions without sending their report over to the Swedish Chemicals Agency, because that they do not have the obligation to do such a thing. What the fuck! Pardon my language but Sucralose Resembles DDT and PCB and a thorough investigation should be conducted, and rightfully so that is what the Swedish Chemicals Agency will do in 2007.

In the report from the National Food Administration it apparently states that although the synthetic sweetener has been approved, one should consume it in modest doses, a statement which is in accordance with the European Scientific Commité (my translation).

Now I need to take the time to point something out to you all.

1. In the past, chemical agencies and food administrations have cleared new synethetic substances in food or other chemicals to be used in medicines or construction or whatever - substances that 10-20 years later all of a sudden are seen as toxins, hazardous not only for man but also for the environment. Are we going to do something about it?

2. Sucralose apparently runs straight through your body when for example one drinks a soft drink or whatnot, or so they say. Yay! But they have totally neglected or overlooked the fact that this substance runs straight through our water treatment plants without sticking to the layers of sediments and other equipment that filters 'our' water and make it drinkable again (or atleast for us in the western world). This synthetic substance is out there in the environment, and who should investigate how it (and most likely hundreds or perhaps thousands of other substances) or atleast point out to people that this luxury that is the society of consumption really is bad news? We are rapidly not only using all of our resources but we are doing so without really bothering with the effects, we are looking in the other direction. Global warming, the consumption society, power structures and economy, it is all connected. Are we going to do something about it?

3. Even though Sucralose is not real sugar and is supposed to be 'better' than real sugar, you still get a craving for sweet provisions.

Unscientifical conclusion number one: Instead of educating people to eat healthier the provisions industry comes up with something that makes people become even more addicted to their products in an even larger scale, and earn them a lot more money in the process. The provisions industry does not want education - they want ignorance.

Unscientifical conclusion number two: This ignorance that can be said to exist within the provisions communities can be found in various forms within other communities (transnational communities) that contribute to global warming, the consumption society and even supporting the ignorant type of politics which makes way for them to keep on destroying our way of life and esentially our mentality. Are we going to do something about it?

Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health

2006-10-18T09:19:00.000+02:00

An American researcher has collected data from both USA and Europe about the potential risks and benefits from eating different fish. The results have been gathered by The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which promotes the science and art of medicine and the betterment of the Public Health.

The result and consclusion is not that unexpected, but salmon in the wild do not have a greater amount of quicksilver in them than the salmon that has grown up with the aid of man according to the study, if we are to believe what DN writes. Some fish do have a greater amount of Omega-3 in them but the radical difference can be find between various sorts of fish.

DN have chosen to contribute with graphics on which fish that has the greater amount of 'good' fat and which fish that has the most amount of 'bad' fat. This piece of graphic is problematic for some reasons such as the absence of information on other contents that might be good with the fish that contain less good fat.

However, EPA and DHA are the types of Omega-3 that has heart-protecting effects according to the study. Moreover, we also have to keep in mind that it was American researchers who, only two years ago, warned us that the Norweigan salmon contained high amounts of toxins such as PCB and dioxins compared to salmon from the west coast in the United States. The reaserchers gained a lot of attention but also drew a lot of criticism. European toxicologists opposed the American researchers with their own research data.

Here is the abstract from the report:

Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health
Evaluating the Risks and the Benefits

Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH; Eric B. Rimm, ScD
JAMA. 2006;296:1885-1899.

Context Fish (finfish or shellfish) may have health benefits and also contain contaminants, resulting in confusion over the role of fish consumption in a healthy diet.

Evidence Acquisition We searched MEDLINE, governmental reports, and meta-analyses, supplemented by hand reviews of references and direct investigator contacts, to identify reports published through April 2006 evaluating (1) intake of fish or fish oil and cardiovascular risk, (2) effects of methylmercury and fish oil on early neurodevelopment, (3) risks of methylmercury for cardiovascular and neurologic outcomes in adults, and (4) health risks of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish. We concentrated on studies evaluating risk in humans, focusing on evidence, when available, from randomized trials and large prospective studies. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to characterize benefits and risks most precisely.

Evidence Synthesis Modest consumption of fish (eg, 1-2 servings/wk), especially species higher in the n-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), reduces risk of coronary death by 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-50%; P<.001) and total mortality by 17% (95% confidence interval, 0%-32%; P = .046) and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes. Intake of 250 mg/d of EPA and DHA appears sufficient for primary prevention. DHA appears beneficial for, and low-level methylmercury may adversely affect, early neurodevelopment. Women of childbearing age and nursing mothers should consume 2 seafood servings/wk, limiting intake of selected species. Health effects of low-level methylmercury in adults are not clearly established; methylmercury may modestly decrease the cardiovascular benefits of fish intake. A variety of seafood should be consumed; individuals with very high consumption (5 servings/wk) should limit intake of species highest in mercury levels. Levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish are low, and potential carcinogenic and other effects are outweighed by potential benefits of fish intake and should have little impact on choices or consumption of seafood (women of childbearing age should consult regional advisories for locally caught freshwater fish).

Conclusions For major health outcomes among adults, based on both the strength of the evidence and the potential magnitudes of effect, the benefits of fish intake exceed the potential risks. For women of childbearing age, benefits of modest fish intake, excepting a few selected species, also outweigh risks.

Author Affiliations: Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School; and Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.

Jama
Abstract

Podcast Concerning Synthetic Sweeteners (In Swedish)

2006-10-13T19:53:00.000+02:00

P1 Konsument 2006-06-14
Podcast

This is a debate with Göran Petersson, Pernilla Lunderot and Ann-Cristin Nykvist about synthetic sweeteners and other questions concerning sugar with the host Cecilia Collin. This podcast is in Swedish.

Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM)

2006-08-02T12:29:00.000+02:00

I would like to take the opportunity to write a post about LfM and their work. As I am going to write a lot about their material in this blog, I wanted to post the information about what they do and how the organisation is constituted. The following text can be found at their website Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM):

"Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM) is a non governmental non political organisation. It was founded in 1991 and is open to medical doctors, medical students and scientists within the medical field. Others can be associated members. LfM now has around 300 members from all medical specialities.

The purpose of LfM is to promote a development of society that leads to good living conditions and health for today's and tomorrow's generations, nationally as well as globally.

LfM wants to quicken the development towards a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable society. We want to support this development through- bringing forward scientifically founded principles and knowledge about connections between environmental factors and health;- bringing forward that the human being, being a part of nature, is dependant of healthy eco systems that can provide us with air, water and food of sufficient amount and quality.

LfM has, together with Engineers and Economists for the Environment (IfM and EfM) formed the umbrella organisation The Natural Step's Professional Network (DNSy) www.dnsy.se.

LfM is associated to two international organisations:- ISDE, International Society of Doctors for the Environment http://www.isde.org/. - HCWH, Health Care Without Harm www.noharm.org.

We agree with the four system conditions, developed by The Natural Step Foundation www.detnaturligasteget.se:
System condition 1 In a sustainable society the functions and diversity of nature are not destroyed by a systematical increase of concentrations of substances from the bedrock.
System condition 2 In a sustainable society the functions and diversity of nature is not depleted by a systematical increase of concentrations of substances from society´s production.
System condition 3 In a sustainable society the functions and diversity of nature is not depleted through overuse, repression and manipulation.
System condition 4 In a sustainable society the thrift with resources is efficient and just so that human needs can be satisfied everywhere.

We think globally:
- Chemicals and health
- Traffic and health
- Climate changes and health
- Energy issues and health
- Food and health

We consider the responsibilities of the profession:
- Medicines, health and environment
- Life style, health and environment

We have arranged seminars on "Medicines, Health and Environment" in 2004 and 2005. Coming is "Food for life" February 16, 2006.

We publish four issues yearly of our Newsletter. No 3-4/2005 dealt with nuclear power for energy.The address is LfM, Box 2277, S-103 17 Stockholm, Sweden".

Twenty Five Short Insights On Food, Health and the Environment

2006-08-02T11:51:00.000+02:00

These short points can be found in the newsletter "Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM)" nr. 2-3 2006 and are comprehensive for what was said during a lecture on toxics in our food.

Consumers

• It was members of the consumer's co-operative society who pushed the ecological trade forward.

Society

• It was those cultures who chose agriculture which have moved on towards the modern civilisation with its culture and technology. Everyone did not have to be involved in finding food for the day, some could be creative in other fields.

• Princes had it easier to rule if they controlled corn stock instead of root vegetable stock.

Substances

• We (Swedes) had a widespread lack of nourishment during the later part of the 18th century. There was especially less iron and vitamin c in Norrland.

• We have forgotten about the berries and their valuable contents.

• We have methods such as preservation which makes it possible to get a hold of locally produced vegetables and fruit all year round.

• When we start to cultivate wild variations of vegetables and berries they will lose parts of their valuable content, which normally can be found in the wild kinds.

• We do not know enough about the valuable content of fruit and vegetables.

Energy

• We can be net producers of energy once again, like the agriculture was before the oil period.

• Physical activity is very important for our health. It is good that we have to use more physical activity during the production of provisions.

Areas

• Grazing-grounds, pastures or rice constitutes more than ninety percent of the production in the world.

• When eat S.M.A.R.T. was used as a platform to calculate how much area it takes to produced food and oil for one person, it amounted to about 1250 M2.

• If you eat ecologically produced meat then it takes larger areas due to the forage, but parts do come from pastures which otherwise would not be used. It takes far less areas if you eat less meat and that the meat is ecological.

Livestock

• The animals are an ecological resource which maintains the ecological balance.

• Lacto-vegetarians live in symbiosis with the meat eaters.

• The animals give warmth which can be good during oil shortage.

Toxics

• To develop variations which are more resistant to diseases means that one develops variations with a higher concentration of toxics.

• When we look the use of chemicals we do not think about the non active substances in a product.

• A Danish study showed that better sperm quality could be linked to ecological farmers rather than traditional farmers.

• We are dependent of the long fatty acids in fish. However, we have polluted fish with chemical toxics.

Local Production

• It is not entirely accurate that food that has been shipped from far away has contributed to more carbon dioxide than locally produced food from greenhouses.

• Locally produced food is the way to go. But we have to gain knowledge how we can adapt to our variable climate.

• Social relations and to feel part of something benefit from the responsibility within the local ecological community.

Conclusions

• Eat S.M.A.R.T. is a good start when discussing eating habits from a global and health perspective.

• We have to change our agriculture to ecocycle agriculture.

Chiquita's Frog Is Not Ecological

2006-07-27T11:53:00.000+02:00

This is not fresh off the press but it has for some time been widely known within the eco-society that Chiquita's frog is not ecological. Chiquita means "little" but Chiquita Brands International is a big fruit company on the market. Chiquita is known for its bananas, which a lot of Swedes like, making Sweden one of the countries which are marketable for Chiquita Brands International.

Chiquita has launched and been providing Sweden with bananas labeled with a green frog, certified by the Rainforest Alliance. But Chiquita's tactics make consumers believe that they are ecological bananas. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation points out that Chiquita still use one of the most toxic biocides at their banana plantations. As much as 50 Kg biocides are spread yearly across each cultivation hectare, which is ten times more that what is used at conventional cultivations of potatoes, potatoes are the crops most sprayed with pesticides in Sweden.

Chiquita releases inacurate information; claiming that the certified plantations house as much wildlife and plantlife as in the jungle, which is totally wrong. Even though they are certified, Chiquita's banana plantations are green deserts. Compared to other brands such as Dole and Del Monte, Chiquita have tried to improve their production by working on environmental improvements and better social conditions for their workers.
If you do not like the situation you can make a difference by boycotting the brands that are not ecological, and buy products that are either labeled with fairtrade or if you live in Sweden: KRAV, (which I will write about in forthcoming posts).

Boycott unecological brands - support ecological alternatives for a better environment and for the workers at the plantations worldwide.

Provisions Company Dafgård Recalls Products Lacking Correct Decleration of Contents

2006-07-20T17:50:00.000+02:00

According to the Telegram Bureau of the Newspapers (TT) the provisions company Dafgård recalls two dangerous products; their fish au gratin and their shellfish pie. Someone has discovered that these products contain soy protein without having been stated in the decleration of contents. Soy protein can be dangerous for people who are allergic.

Soy protein is not only used in food, no no, according to Wikipedia soy protein is also used for "emulsification and texturizing. Specific applications include adhesives, asphalts, resins, cleaning materials, cosmetics, inks, pleather, paints, paper coatings, pesticides/fungicides, plastics, polyesters and textile fibers". With this in mind I can understand why sensitive people can have reactions from this protein. I wonder exactly in which types of food we can find this protein and what it is used for. Now I do not mean that this protein is all bad news, according to Wikipedia Soy protein may "prevent heart problems and many countries allow health claims for foods that are rich in soy protein". But it was soy allergy that was in consideration and the point with the article was to show that companies are sloppy when it comes to declare what is in their food, they either gamble and try to get their products approved or they just 'miss' what is in their own products. Talk about not having done their homework.

When it comes to Dafgård they do not provide the market with the most nutritious products. Their food is from what I can understand the type of products you heat in the microwave or in the oven. They offer products like "Gorbys", "Billy", ready meals, meatballs, pasta etc. It is not the smallest company, they manufacture 22 different ready meal, from lasagne to fish- and chicken portions. 60 000 of them leave the factory every day, which is a lot of meals. It is hard to understand how the quality is maintained when the production is so high.

Here are some of their nice little quotes.

"Vision - By continual development of products and technology be one of the leading family business in the food trade in Europe"
-Dafgård

Then develop your products by labeling them with correct declerations of content and develop your technology so you know what is in your own products. If you want to be ahead of everyone else then maintain your quality.

"Business concept - We will offer a wide range of delicious food that facilitate and save time in our customers kitchen"
-Dafgård

I do not want to save that much time in my kitchen, primarily I want to cook my own food and eat nutritious food that does not need to be heated in the microwave and lose nutritions from the already-not-so-nutritious product. I know for a fact that these ready dinners are hard to heat properly and I know that you do become full, but you will quite quickly become hungry again during the day. Is that really worth saving some time in the kitchen?

If Dafgård really had a turnover in excess of 180 million euros in 2004 which they claim, then I suggest that they use some of that excess money and spend it by developing more frozen ingredients and ecological food rather than developing their ready meals and their not-so-nutritious "Billy" and "Gorby" products that has to be heated in a microwave.

Severe Draught Causes Problems For Swedish Farmers

2006-07-20T13:16:00.000+02:00

There is currently a severe heat wave over the British Isles as well as in Sweden, where the situation for farmers does not look good. Sweden is experiencing a massive draught due to the unusual lack of rainfall during the summer months. According to svt.se, the most affected areas are Gotland, Öland and Skåne, where the pasturage dries up and the feed-harvest is threatened. The worst case scenario is that farmers may have to kill their cattle.

Farmers on Gotland are feeding their cattle with the feed storaged for the forthcoming winter, but the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) gives a somewhat optimistic but uncertain forecast for the forthcoming weekend. As Sweden is covered in yellows and browns the Swedish National Board of Agriculture have decided to let cattle feed of crop from some sort of fallow land controlled by the European Union. The Swedish government have demanded that the European Commission allow Swedish farmers to let their cattle feed of the fallow land.

Now why do we have to ask the European Commission at all in these situations? There is fallow land where farmers can find food for their cattle, but the European Commission have to decide whether or not to let cattle feed of fallow land. All this boils down to that bureaucracy is worth more than the lives of hundred or perhaps thousands of cattle in Sweden. All decisions and demands have to be filtered through a mindless, slow and bureaucratic mess, which reduce lives of cattle to pieces of paper with the 'right' signatures. I would say, let the cattle out to feed on the fallow land, let them roll around on the properties, shit and feed of the land as they please. Give them some water and let them stay up all night and party on the land controlled by the European Union. The elected mob does not know anything about the situation and health of thousands of Swedish cattle, let the farmers decide what is needed in the appropriate situation and cut out the administrative procedure before it is too late.

Areas affected by the draught also include counties such as Uppsala, Östergötland, Jönköping, Kronoberg, Kalmar, Blekinge, Halland, Skåne and Västra Götaland.
The situation for farmers is critical in a lot of areas due to different oncoming processes in the farming. Farmers have to in a very short time havest their crop, prepare the land for sowing, and then sow next year's harvest. The draught might cost farmers milions of Swedish crowns and the quality of their products will not be as good as if it had fallen more rain during the critical summer months. The potato harvest is affected, so is the corn but the sugar beets can handle some draught. Local specialities are also easily affected in the warm weather.

Since most decisions concerning Swedish agriculture have to go through the European Commission or the Swedish National Board of Agriculture, everything does not develop smoothly and there is a lot of paper work in the way of helping the Swedish farmers out in the countryside. I say, the farmers better ignore the European Commission and act before it is too late - lives, local business and their economy is threatened.

The European Commission wants less Acrylamide in eatables.

2006-07-19T09:43:00.000+02:00

The European Commission wants less acrylamide in food. Personally, I do not want any acrylamide in my food. According to svt.se, the European Commission believes that the percentage of acrylamide in provisions has to be lowered.

The chemical compound acrylamide is formed when provisions are heated, but scientists have not yet been able to prove any connection between acrylamide intake via food and cancer in the large intestine, rectum, bladder, or kidneys. According to Wikipedia "In 2002-04-24, Swedish Livsmedelsverket (National Food Administration) announced that acrylamide can be found in baked and fried starchy foods, such as potato chips and breads, and concern was raised as it may be a carcinogen. And in 2005, in a cooperation between the Harvard School of Public Health and the Swedish Karolinska Institutet, researchers were seeking a connection between acrylamide and breast cancer, but could not find any in that case either, as revealed in a press release published 2005-03-15."

The European Commission has been meeting in Brussels lately and they have been working on trying to develop a program for Europe. This program will allow every country within the European Union to do research and bring forth guidelines for their consumers, scientists in Sweden have been measuring acrylamide in food since a couple of years back but with this program, scientists will finally be able to provide research data on the amounts of acrylamide which the europeans receive from provisions.

Toxicologists at SNFA warned us about acrylamide in provisions four years ago and I believe that we should think first before we eat large amounts of food (of everything really) but the best thing to do is not letting your children eat a lot of junk food such as potato chips or even white bread. I need to find out if you can avoid the creation of acrylamide when you heat up and make your very own potato chips. If you actually were able to create potato chips without the same amounts of acrylamide then I would want manufacturers and companies that create potato chips to investigate exactly what their products consists of before and after the manufacturing process. I would find it easier to avoid potato chips altogether if I knew that the bag would give me cancer from consuming a few potato chips here and there during my lifetime. Even though the connection between acrylamide and cancer is yet to be 'discovered' I believe that we know to little about our bodies' storage capacity when it comes to collecting chemical substances. The thing that I also dislike is that I believe that we might have more reasearch data on the male body and not the female body.

So, next time you bring your friends over, talk about making your own chips or perhaps have some vegetables as snacks instead.

Sucralose Resembles DDT and PCB

2006-07-18T15:30:00.000+02:00

According to Swedish national television, experts warned today the public about the syntehtic sweetener called Sucralose (Splenda is its trade name). Here is the original article in Swedish: SVT.se.

Sucralose apparently resembles hazardous substances such as DDT and PCB and can be found in various products such as sodas and ketchup. It is known as E955 in the European Union and is not only six hundred times as sweet as sucrose but it is twice as sweet as saccharin and four times as sweet as aspartame! Be sure to read all about the use of Sucralose in branded products by following the Sucralose link above.

We do not need all these junk sweeteners. And does it really have to be six hundred times sweeter than sugar? What is the secret? Well, Sucralose does not contain any calories - that is the little miracle this dangerous sweeterner has to offer. According to the article, chemists are stunned that this substance is even used in provisions. The strange thing is that the European Union and the Swedish National Food Administration have approved Sucralose as a sweetener. SNFA apparently writes on their website that "the extensive evaluations on Sucralose could not find any health hazards associated with this sweetener, including increased risk of cancer", then what were the people who did these 'exstensive evaluations' up to? Were they sleeping?

I see a pattern here. What has happened with Sucralose has happened many times before. Food companies come up with new ways of 'developing' their products and then they need to get their 'discoveries' approved by the national food administrations, that is, being approved by them who still have more power than themselves. Even though these substances later on prove to be dangerous, authorities still approve these substances even though they have not been properly tested yet. The authorities have proven to be weak against the commercial threats posed by companies with a lot of money, time and commercial interest on their hands. If this dilemma is ever going to be solved then laws and legislations have to be made by governments and the European Union and the national food administrations need to stop being soft and look beyond these companies and their commercial interests.

Eco and Ethics

2006-07-18T13:28:00.000+02:00

Over the past couple of years an interest for the environment, ecology and ethics has gradually begun to affect the very essence of my actions.

Due to certain people close to me, I have started to eat more healthy food, trying to figure out where the food comes from and why I really should ignore certain products even though they look alright. I also try to think about other aspects concerning our surroundings and the environment in general, it is hard to make a change because one can only control oneself, but through raising people's consciousness by making them aware of certain things, I believe that creating awareness in issues on ecology, food, products, the environment etc. is needed in this day of age. Though I find it hard to live as I teach, creating this blog will help me to remember certain guidelines and codes of ethics and alter my actions in accordance with them.

This blog will hopefully cover various news, guidelines, codes of ethics, products etc. concerning ecology, food, health and the environment. Moreover, I do not believe that one can follow everything by the book and alter ones actions in accordance with all new findings and observations - that would not be possible and you would only lie to yourself in today's western society.
Although I mostly see problems and issues concerning our way of life in the western world, I think that we have the economy to ignore hazardous and unethical products on our market. One of the general arguments is that "You can save thousands of Swedish crowns each month if you shop your groceries at this market". Instead of completely think about our own economy I say let us invest thousands of Swedish crowns in food and products that have eco-labels, that perhaps have been produced in the region or locally, that are not hazardous, that have not been produced with child labor or that have not caused any threats to the ecosystem.

Do not let the market and transnational companies steal the term 'eco' and customize it into their own thing, ridding it of any third party guidelines, research, investigation and even laws. Listen here, the world may be gone in a hundred years time - this is serious and that is why I want you to study and learn how the economical machinery works as it takes its toll on the environment and even mankind.

I'm Spectraz and this is "Eco and Ethics".