There is an old African proverb that says 'if you want to travel fast go alone, if you want to travel far go together'. After five and a half years at Greenpeace, I think together we have travelled fast and far. And, we have travelled together. But it is nearly time for me to embark on a new journey.

By the end of this year I will be stepping down as the Greenpeace International Executive Director. The journey is far from over, and I will stay on it with you. I will then take on my most important role with Greenpeace, as a supporter and volunteer.

A volunteer on a journey, like those currently aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza. Six courageous volunteers, who stand for us all, are making #TheCrossing. Like the tip of an 'iceberg' made up of seven million concerned people, they are following Shell's giant oil rig, the Polar Pioneer, as it makes its way across the Pacific towards the Alaskan Arctic to undertake dangerous Arctic oil drilling.

Why am I sharing this with you now if I won't be leaving for nine months? It's because the Board of Greenpeace International needs to begin the search for its next Executive Director, and such a search is public and requires extensive consultation. In the coming weeks we will be saying more about it. For the present, we have produced a statement that explains this announcement.

As I say in the statement, this is not a sudden decision for me. It's not that I could not do more here, at Greenpeace International. I'd be happy to continue to work with, or rather for, all of you. But over the last year I have been feeling a strong pull to return home to South Africa. I have been away for 17 years and it feels that the time to return is upon me.

I watch with despair how the South African government, my government, is rolling out plans to spend as much as a trillion Rand (US$ 85 billion) on an absurd deal with Russia to build some seven nuclear reactors.

So, when Greenpeace International has made the smooth transition to new leadership I will be devoting whatever skills I have acquired over the years to the fight for energy justice in South Africa. I believe this to be one of the biggest challenges facing my country since the ending of apartheid.

This struggle is of course about not only about climate change, it's also about development and making sure that the roughly one-in-five South Africans without electricity have access to clean power. It is also about democracy. For over 60 years we have seen that nuclear power and democracy don't mix.

I want to do what I can to help my country develop based on democratic, 21st century, renewable energy systems. Currently, there is only one nuclear power plant in Africa, at Koeberg, just outside Cape Town. As we said when we hung a banner on it in 2002, during the Earth Summit, it should be the first and last.

It's a tough call, but for every activist there is a battle we must fight, and this is mine.

Over the last few months I have been discussing with the International Board Chair, Ana Toni, when the best time would be for me to step down. We have discussed how best to ensure the smooth transition I mentioned. As a result, I have agreed to stay on in my current position until the end of the year, at latest, to allow for a successor to be found and the handover to be completed. I will carry on as normal in helping win as many campaign victories as possible.

Greenpeace has come a long way as an organisation in recent years. We've strengthened our links to other groups in civil society and become a strong partner in the broader justice movement. We're including our volunteers and supporters in strategic decisions, we've moved to a more open and 'people-powered' approach to campaigning and are more active than ever in the key environmental battlegrounds.

Success or failure in these battlegrounds will decide the fate of our environment and the legacy that we pass on to our children.

I am confident that with the support of so many people we are on the right path to achieve those bigger, and urgently needed campaign victories.

Over the coming months I very much look forward to continuing to work with all of you while the search for my successor gets under way.

They say in any struggle you must lead, follow or get out of the way. In my view, we must all become leaders.

I will continue to follow the development of our fabulous organisation. And, wherever possible, I will join you in getting in the way of the destructive forces that are preventing a just transition to a green and peaceful future.

Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1C1zYvr

After five and a half years as the head of Greenpeace International, Kumi Naidoo today announced his decision to step down as the organisation's Executive Director. In agreement with the Board of Greenpeace International, Kumi is staying on until 31 December 2015, at the latest, to ensure a smooth transition to new leadership. The Board is now embarking on the difficult task of searching for a replacement. Meanwhile, Kumi continues in his current role of leading Greenpeace and promoting the organisation's campaigns.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1EvZ1On

Pesticide Action Week 2015 had just started when I had read some interesting news: "Roundup weedkiller 'probably'* causes cancer, says WHO study"

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – an agency affiliated with the World Health Organization – had recently published the assessment of carcinogenicity of five organophosphate pesticides, among which glyphosate, the active ingredient on which Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, is based.

And, thanks to Monsanto, of the five compounds, glyphosate is the most widely used, since it is the main herbicides against which crops have been genetically engineered (GE) to be tolerant to, as "GE Roundup Ready" crops.

When the GE crops were first introduced, one of the many claims was that they would need less chemicals to thrive. But, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number and extent of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate and, as a consequence, the amount of this herbicide used by farmers has kept increasing too.

This is not the first study on glyphosate. Its toxicity has been studied both alone and in combination with the other ingredients used in the Roundup formulation.

In the US, where 73.1 million of acres are dedicated to GE crops, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given its thumbs up on the use of glyphosate. The same authority also controls the residues of pesticides permitted in food. These same levels were raised in 2013 following a request by Monsanto.

Doubts have been growing even in the communities of users as witnessed by some US farmers after they'd been convinced that GE crops would improve their yields, assured this latest IARC assessment will add weight to arguments by those who believe that Roundup could be damaging their health.

For Monsanto the IARC assessment is bad news. The company's representatives told Reuters they will seek a retraction of the report. After all, 'Monsanto's $15.9 billion annual sales are closely tied to glyphosate. And most of the company's crops are designed to be used in tandem with it.'

Huge interests are at stake, but also huge responsibilities, and I am not referring to Monsanto's stakeholders, but to the farmers and the consumers, and ultimately to the planet and its biodiversity.

"Probably" the time has come to make sure that what's driving the decisions of the kind of agriculture that will feed the world in the future are not companies with a pocket-filling agenda.

Our planet has limited resources and we have many challenges to cope with.

Climate change is already heavily affecting agriculture.

What we need to do is to invest in an agriculture that can face the changing climate: reliable and achievable biotech improvements that don't include GE crops. We need an agriculture that helps nourish our soil and protects biodiversity. An agriculture where farmers and consumers have their say and they are not just numbers in the great scheme of corporate agribusiness.

We need to invest in ecological-farming. We need to take ownership once more of the connection with our food. This is the first step if we want to be healthy humans living on a healthy planet.

Patrizia Cuonzo is Media Specialist at Greenpeace International.

* And whether you wonder what does the 'probably' in the Guardian's headline means, the IARC is grouping the assessments of carcinogenicity into five categories where the 'probably ' (Group 2A) is stronger than the 'possibly' (Group 2B) but weaker than the plain 'carcinogenic to humans' (Group 1).

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1BCR6I4

Contributed by Haley Burress

If you have never had a family member or friend trudge through the chemotherapy process, you might be nervous or anxious about giving your friend a ride to his next chemo appointment. It can be daunting to walk in the room and sit next to those big recliners. You might feel scared or sad that your friend has to be there at all. However, all of those feelings aside, you are doing the best thing you can for your friend – you are showing up. When you show up, you are demonstrating that your friend isn’t in this cancer fight alone; you are showing that you are here for the long haul and that you will sit with them through the bad parts so that they are not sitting alone.

But before you head out the door to give your friend a ride, you might feel more comfortable if you have a few things prepared for your time together. Depending on the diagnosis, the chemotherapy process can last for hours at a time. These hours are sedentary, with the patient sitting down receiving medications through a port near their collarbone. Prepping a bag of things to do together and brainstorming topics to talk about during the chemotherapy process can help both of you pass the time well. In fact, there are plenty of memories – silly, sad, and serious – to be made in those chemo recliners. Here are a few ideas to get you started.

Keep up with current events
Depending on your friend’s interests, current events might be the latest stock exchange numbers, who won the game last night, or the latest gossip on The Bachelor. Just know the topics really don’t matter, as long as you can keep up with his interests. Stock up on a few magazines or newspapers before you head to the chemo appointment. Read a few articles aloud and discuss while munching on chemo staple popsicles.

Escape reality with a good book
It can be difficult for an otherwise active person to sit for hours at a time during a treatment. Come prepared with a good book that the two of you can read together. If your friend has a headache or is too tired to read, you can still read the book aloud. Choose a best seller, an easy beach read, or maybe something from the Jack Reacher series for more action. Reading together will not only give you both the chance to escape your current situation, but it can be a bonding activity for the two of you as well. Remember to only read the book together during your time at chemo or during other visits, so you will have plenty to discuss during and after you finish.

Plug in to technology
If there ever was an appropriate time to spend too much time in front of a screen, the chemotherapy process is it. Take advantage of your chemo hours together by binging on Netflix (House of Cards is popular addiction) or Podcasts (be sure to look up Serial). Pick a series that you have never seen to try it out or choose a classic that you both can’t get enough of. You might be surprised to see nurses or a few other patients looking over your shoulders to catch a glimpse of the newest Scandal episode.

If you find yourself bored with television series or true crime podcasts, use your iPad to play some games. Heads Up is a fun guessing game that The Ellen Show uses frequently, while Crossy Road features a busy street and random animals who want to cross it. Give a few a try and watch as you both end up laughing.

Leave a legacy
Depending on your friend, the patient, you might find that it is important to use the chemotherapy process as a time to talk about memories. So often, we shy away from talking with one another about our memories, worries, or regrets when someone is facing a serious illness. It can come off as too depressing to talk about happier times or morbid to talk about past regrets. However, it can also be the most therapeutic thing to do. Feel your friend out and don’t let your sadness or discomfort make you steer the conversation away from serious subjects that he might want to talk about.

This much is true – people want to leave a legacy. They want to be heard, to share their story with others. Be a friend that allows that to happen. Keep your friend’s stories alive, ask his opinion, ask deeper questions. Be the safe place that hears him, values his stories, and holds his thoughts.

Take up a new hobby together
Never been a knitter, but always wanted to learn? Get some needles, yarn, and a YouTube tutorial and learn how to knit together. By the end of your friend’s treatments, you might both be professional knitters. Or, you might end treatments with balls full of knotted yarn, but hearts full of laughter and memories. Either way, it is a win. Choose a hobby to learn together, keeping in mind that it has to be something that can be done while sitting for long periods of time. Pick something silly like thumb wrestling or rock/paper/scissors, or choose something meaningful like scrapbooking for family members or knitting blankets for the hospital’s labor and delivery unit. You are only limited by your imagination – and the recliner.

Be quiet
Chemo can be physically, emotionally and mentally exhausting for those who are going through it. Sometimes the best thing you can do is to simply sit in the silence with your tired friend. Tell him it is okay to doze off, or to say nothing at all. What matters is that you are sitting by his side. That act alone speaks louder than anything you might have said all day.

Educate and empower yourself
A good friend and chemo partner should know at least some basics of the chemotherapy process so that you can better understand what is happening. You can better advocate and ask good questions when you know the chemo basics. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is a great point of reference, so start to do a bit of research on your friend’s condition and find out a bit more about the ins and outs of chemo.

Finally, if you are a caregiver or a patient and are overwhelmed by the scope of your chemo schedule, Lotsa Helping Hands is here to help. Start a Community today so you can rally friends and family members around you and take a look at how you can use a Community to manage your chemo visits.

The post What to Talk About During the Chemotherapy Process appeared first on Lotsa Helping Hands Create Community.

from Lotsa Helping Hands Create Community » Blog http://ift.tt/1CYMFN0

The Associated Press recently released results of an investigation into slavery on Southeast Asian fishing trawlers that supply major supermarkets and seafood companies throughout the United States. The enslaved men featured in the AP story, primarily from Myanmar, were brought to Benjina, Indonesia and forced to fish for products that were then shipped to Thailand, where they entered the global seafood market, including American supply chains.

The story detailed accounts of human rights abuses and raised additional questions about where the slave-caught seafood ends up. US Customs records indicated that several of the Thai factories connected to the dirty seafood ship their products to the United States. The investigation uncovered slaves who were regularly kicked, beaten and whipped with stingray tails, and reports of dead bodies being thrown to the sharks or kept in freezers with the fish.

One of the companies connected to the suppliers was Thai Union, owner of Chicken of the Sea, and currently set to purchase Bumble Bee. While the AP did not specifically investigate tuna fisheries, the story reinforces serious concerns over the supply chains for the biggest tuna companies in the US. In Greenpeace's recent canned tuna ranking, the big three tuna companies – Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee and Starkist, making up 80 percent of the US market – all received failing scores on both sustainability and human rights issues.

There has been increasing pressure on Thailand to clean up tuna industry labor practices. In 2014, a US report on human trafficking downgraded Thailand to Tier 3, the worst level, for not meeting minimum standards to protect workers. Thai Union was quick to respond to today's AP investigation and drop the supplier in question, but knowing this investigation tracked just one shipment from a single supplier, serious concerns remain about where the company's seafood is coming from.

In response to today's Associated Press findings, Greenpeace US Oceans Campaign Director John Hocevar said:

"When it comes to slave labor and human rights abuses in seafood supply chains, the Associated Press findings are the tip of the iceberg. Working conditions aboard fishing vessels are among the worst in the world. While the investigation didn't look at tuna vessels specifically, it connected slavery and major abuses to the largest player in the American tuna market – Thai Union. This company is responsible for the majority of destructive tuna found across the country – owning Chicken of the Sea and soon Bumble Bee, and supplying Kroger and Walmart. If you eat tuna that is sourced from Thai Union, there is no way to be sure you aren't eating fish associated with slave labor or caught under extremely poor conditions.

"If Thai Union takes this issue seriously, it will work swiftly and diligently to eliminate slave labor and human rights abuses from its entire supply chain, not just one supplier. Ensuring that its seafood is produced with slightly less slave labor is not an acceptable response for US consumers.

"Rather than waiting for someone else to expose where and how its seafood is caught, Thai Union must become a leader in traceability – tracking fish from ship to shelf, including regular third party audits and unannounced visits aboard ships. The company should move to ensure it sources from only legal, sustainable and socially responsible fisheries, and any tuna sold by Thai Union must not be sourced from vessels that transfer catches to other ships at sea. Transshipment at sea is a known way to hide illegal catches and prevent the traceability needed to eliminate slavery from seafood supply chains.

"Slavery was officially abolished in the US in 1865, but American companies continue to profit from slavery on fishing vessels. Seafood businesses like Thai Union that are associated with slave labor and human rights abuses must either embrace proactive solutions or be shunned by the US market."

For additional information on slavery and labor abuse at sea, as well as guidance for the fishing industry, please visit: http://ift.tt/1uzO4Gk

To read the entire Associated Press investigative report, please visit: http://ift.tt/1CNu5r6

For Greenpeace's canned tuna ranking press release, please visit: http://ift.tt/1NdchZt

John Hocevar is the Oceans Campaign Director at Greenpeace US.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1NdchZu

Grrrowd is a powerful new model for crowdfunding legal cases involving human and environmental rights. It's the Kickstarter of class action suits, the Indiegogo of good cases for good causes.

It's the place where a poor Mexican community can get help fighting off the 86 appeals and other legal actions filed by big Agribiz companies who are trying to overturn a law protecting 8000 years of traditional corn cultivation.

Or where the indigenous people of Canada's Beaver Lake Cree Nation can get help standing up to protect the land and water of their traditional home – and the very future of a planet threatened by climate change – from the environmental nightmare of tar sands oil extraction.

Or where you can protect African Rhinos by challenging plans for a coal mine in a South African wildlife reserve.

Would you please take a minute to check out the links and see how you can add your weight to civil society's struggle?

Turning collective will into legal action

All of these cases involve rich industries locked in conflict with poor communities, the natural world, or future generations. Grrrowd can help them tip the scales of justice back into balance.

As our world becomes more connected and less encumbered by borders, the power of people banding together for a common cause grows stronger. As our ability to communicate, reach out and network with one another grows stronger, you might say our planet is developing a nervous system made of billions of human beings – synapses and nerve endings in a vast neural network that can sense and respond to threat. But to create transformative change, we need more than the sensing and communications that a nervous system provides: we need muscle.

Grrrowd is muscle. It's a great example of how we can turn our collective will into legal action for the good of the many, the future of our planet, and our rights as human beings.

Greenpeace and the rule of law

Is it confusing to read that Greenpeace believes profoundly in the rule of law? After all, we're not afraid of being arrested and put on trial for taking a stand, or to expose the special interests behind bad laws, or to challenge the authority under which bad laws are made.

But that's not disdain for the law.

It's disdain for the law's failure to protect the global commons, human rights, and the needs of future generations. In fact, over its 40-year history, Greenpeace is responsible for or has contributed to the MAKING of far many more laws than we've ever broken: and that's part of our mission. We raise difficult questions about what society deems acceptable, and seek to change that.

We stood up with our supporters to oppose nuclear waste dumping at sea in the 80s – it's now illegal. We stood up with our supporters to oppose international trade in toxic waste – it's now illegal. The dumping of oil rigs like the Brent Spar in the North Sea? Illegal. Commercial whaling? Illegal. Ozone-killing chemicals? Illegal. Logging in the ecologically sensitive areas of the Great Bear Rainforest? Illegal.

All of the laws that protect against those abuses were made on the back of public protest, civil disobedience, and the re-examination of the laws which once permitted what today are environmental crimes.

Human law is not written on stone tablets, it's made of clay. It's constantly reshaped.

Crowdfunding for justice and defending the global commons

Justice is supposed to serve the many, not the moneyed few. But when it comes to the rights of the natural world, or of future generations, who pays their legal fees to challenge laws that harm their interests? How does the ocean hire a lawyer? Where is the public defender who will prepare a case for my great-great-granddaughter's right to clean air, clean water, and healthy food?

All too often in the world today, in which corporations are granted the rights of personhood and our legal and legislative systems can be perverted to serve private gold rather than the common good, legal protection or redress can be a commodity – one whose cost is out of reach.

Too many people whose human rights have been violated or whose land or oceans have been ravaged could only turn out their pockets when asked, "How much justice can you afford?"

Now, by crowdfunding legal cases, everyone with a conscience can support 'David' in hauling 'Goliath' before the courts.

Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International. He recently accepted an invitation to join Grrrowd's Advisory Board.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1CQNQ11

It’s seems simple. Walking. You took your first steps as an infant – and it’s been a primary mode of movement for your whole life. It’s like breathing. Sometimes you don’t think much about walking – but it’s one of the best things you can do for your physical and emotional well-being. Walking could be the key to your health and your ability to juggle all the responsibilities. If you’ve been wondering, “What are the benefits of walking,” or just need a little motivation to get started, here are some reasons to step out!

Strong Bones, Strong Muscles

We all know that over time our bones and muscles weaken. Brittle bones and tired muscles are not terribly helpful when we have so many responsibilities throughout the day – caring for ourselves and for others. That’s why walking is so important to keep those bones and muscles strong. The National Osteoporosis Foundation lists walking as a low-impact, weight-bearing exercise, which puts the necessary pressure on your bones to keep them strong and healthy. To add a little extra muscle strengthening as you walk, stop every few minutes and, from a standing position, rock up onto your toes and back down again. Repeat in intervals, increasing as you get stronger. This combination of bone and muscle exercise will keep those bones solid and you ready to tackle what the days bring.

Stress Relief

Just as important as the physical benefits of walking are the emotional and mental benefits of walking. If you find yourself stuck in a routine of caring for everyone else while rarely having time for yourself, making time for a daily or every other day walk will make all the difference. Think of it as a mental break from everything else you have to think about and do throughout the day. In addition, moving those muscles and getting your heart rate up will release endorphins and help you feel better – both in the moment and throughout the day. Last winter, we recommended walking and other power exercises as a great way to relieve stress. Throughout the year, get up, get moving, and enjoy a little stress relief.

Energy Boost

It seems counterintuitive, but you are feeling exhausted and drained from daily schedules. A short walk might be just what you need to restore some energy and to change up your routine. It doesn’t have to be a strenuous jaunt. Just get out in the sun or hop on the treadmill and walk a bit. Stretching those muscles and raising your heart rate a bit will bring some refreshment. In fact, exercising tends to help you sleep better – so you will wake with even more energy for others.

Time Alone and Time for Others

According to the Caregiver Action Network, one of the first things to be neglected in the midst of the chaos and new normal of caregiving is your intimate relationships. As you find yourself pouring into others, you may also find yourself with less to give to those you love the most. A scheduled walk can help. This can be your time together. Throw on some workout clothes and make it a fun way to exercise together. Or take a stroll in your favorite location – don’t forget to hold hands. Use this time to talk, reconnect, and remember the value of your relationship.

When to Walk

As you look at your daily routine, it can be hard to imagine how you’re going to find the time to walk. How can you possibly add one more thing to your to-do list? Get creative about where and when you can take a walk. Do you drive a loved one to a regular appointment? Can you step outside the doctor’s or therapist’s office and walk around the building a few times? Does your child have sports practices? Can you grab a couple other parents and walk around the track or field while you’re waiting? Look for useable time during or in between things and make it happen.

Purpose-filled Steps

Look for excuses to get walking and give back. Organizations like the Muscular Dystrophy Association host local walks to raise awareness and funds for research and support. If you have a cause close to your heart, sign up for a walk or organize one yourself. You’ll find yourself more motivated to strap on those tennis shoes and get out there if you know you’re doing it for a reason! The fundraising aspect is helpful for motivation as well. When you have money on the line, and more importantly funds for a cure on the line, you will be eager to follow through and get moving. If the walk is a particularly long or challenging, you may even find yourself needing to train for it. Get an accountability partner and start walking together to get ready for the big event.

Make the Time

If you just don’t think you have the time, make it. Carve it into your schedule. Your Lotsa Calendar is perfect for this. Ask volunteers to come and sit with your loved one who needs care, or bring you dinner, or clean the gutters – whatever is keeping you from taking that time for yourself. Use the time freed up to get outside, breathe some fresh air, and walk. Reminder yourself what are the benefits of walking. You will be more empowered, energetic, and prepared to care for those around you!

The post What are the Benefits of Walking? appeared first on Lotsa Helping Hands Create Community.

from Lotsa Helping Hands Create Community » Blog http://ift.tt/1bqPID4

This weekend the world celebrated World Water Day – a reminder of how crucial it is for us to protect and defend our waterways and ensure we can all have access to clean, safe water – a human right, recognised by the United Nations.

However, over the past few weeks here in Mexico we have had little reason to celebrate as the country faces one of the biggest threats to its waterways for years – the Ley General de Aguas. This new piece of legislation, introduced to the house of representatives on the 4th of March, is a far cry from its original goal: to ensure fair access to safe, clean water for all.

This is a law that puts profits before people.

Legalising pollution

The Detox campaign has been working for years to create a toxic-free future and we have seen just what is possible, witnessing; transformational change in the fashion sector. However, instead of securing this progress, the new Ley General de Aguas would allow companies to freely pollute Mexico's rivers, determining 'acceptable levels' of hazardous chemicals, allowing companies to self-regulate and even making pollution affordable with small fines.

Criminalising independent investigation

Perhaps one of the most worrying precedents in this initiative is the criminalisation of investigations or monitoring conducted without the government's permission. Scientists, independent NGOs like Greenpeace, journalists or even school children would face a fine if they were to conduct investigations without permission of the government. It would deny the Mexican people the right to know what is being released into the rivers they rely upon.

Privatizing our future

The law also furthers a system of water privatization, giving big companies the right to do what they want with our water via concessions, move it from one river to another, use huge amounts for mega-projects or pollute freely. This would further entrench a broken system: 70% of Mexico's rivers are polluted and the availability of clean water is rapidly decreasing.

However, there is hope. A growing movement of civil society organisations, renowned scientists, some of the country's most respected academics and a host of celebrities have joined the thousands speaking out against this law. The law has already been delayed once and the voices against it are growing . Over 100,00 have signed an online petition and this weekend thousands took to the streets and to tweets to defend Mexico's water.

Another way: a people's law

The movement has also proposed its own solution: a people's water law (in Spanish) developed over two years by over 450 different experts in the field. This 'people's law' would work towards protecting Mexico's water resources for the future generations: it would regulate and reduce the use of hazardous chemicals and, unlike the current proposal, guarantee the Mexican people's human right to access clean water.

Mexico is at a crossroads. The next few weeks will decide the future of the country's precious water but this is not just an issue for people here in Mexico, this law sets a dangerous precendent about how we use and treat the world's water.

We need you. Join the movement and help us take this to an international stage by adding your name to the petition and sharing this news with your contacts.

Robin Perkins is the Detox Programme Leader for Greenpeace Mexico. He tweets @RobinJPerkins.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1OuSmXE

Crews continue pouring concrete mat slabs and pile caps for the new Entertainment and Sports Center. Sacramento ECS Construction - from the 14th floor of the Federal Court house on "I" Street Sacramento ECS Construction - From 14th floor of 555 Capitol Mall. Sacramento ECS Construction - Taken from 5th Street Sacramento ECS Construction - taken

from LivingInUrbanSac http://ift.tt/1N7pqBq

Reports that the growth in carbon pollution paused last year should give heart to climate campaigners and clean energy investors around the world. The figures, from the International Energy Agency, no less, will come as a cold shower to those who still believe that burning fossil fuels is inextricably bound to economic growth.

For the first time in 40 years, global carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector did not increase. During 2014, the global economy grew by 3 percent but emissions remained at 2013 levels. "This is a real surprise. We have never seen this before", IEA chief economist Fatih Birol was reported as saying.

Whether a blip or a tipping point, it is an indication that renewable energy and energy efficiency are becoming serious game-changers.

If, despite the overwhelming evidence and the internationally agreed scientific consensus, you are someone who still believes climate change is contentious, take a moment, inhale deeply, and think about what a tip could mean for millions of people who are forced to breathe polluted air.

Consider the air quality in some Chinese cities where extreme air pollution means young children have never seen the stars. China's carbon dioxide emissions have dropped for the first time since 2001, largely due to a drop in coal use by factories that have become the workshop of the world. Yet this hasn't resulted in a slowdown of the country's economy -- something that my colleagues in Greenpeace East Asia have been saying for a while.

Or consider the air quality in Delhi which continues to rival that of Beijing's. Let me here give a shout-out to the High Court of India that recently ruled that standing up against the polluting coal industry doesn't constitute "anti-nationalism." My colleague, Priya Pillai embodies the boldness of thousands of people across the globe who are proving their courage in the face of relentless polluters.

Does development really have to be founded on choking levels of smog and ever-rising carbon pollution or can it be achieved under the clear skies of a future based on renewable energy?

Aside from the progress being achieved in China, the IEA's figures, due to be released in full in a report in June, show that OECD countries' carbon dioxide emissions have fallen 4 percent over the past five years while their economies grew by nearly 7 percent.

In the European Union, renewable energy sources, led by wind and solar, last year proved central to meeting the additional power needs of its Member States. Renewables also met over half of those needs in the US, where 180 coal plants have become obsolete in the past four years. It is a testament to the thousands of forward-thinking engineers and business people who have harnessed the wind and the sun as serious options for generating power.

I wonder how the IEA's figures are going down in the boardrooms of fossil fuel companies, whose defenders continue to pump millions of dollars into anti-climate change PR campaigns and then scurry away when confronted with scrutiny.

Deep in their hearts they must know that pillaging the planet to power businesses and warm our homes is wrong and a zero-sum game. Why are they so sadly lacking in morality?

Surely they see that the writing is on the wall. It is manifested in the countless numbers of solar panels blossoming on rooftops and in communities across the world. It is being sung by the whirring of wind farms that are capturing increasing amounts of pollution-free energy. And it can be heard in the growing number of voices that are calling for a halt to climate change and for holding polluters accountable.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency are already making important inroads in stemming air pollution. The vast untapped potential for clean energy must not be lost on governments as they prepare to conclude a new climate agreement in Paris, this December. The question is whether governments will stand up for their citizens and set in stone ambitious targets that allow us all to live within the 'safe' limits of the biosphere.

I hold out the hope that the world will shortly turn a corner in combating global warming. At the very least, we have a firm example that curbing global emissions while economies expand is not a fanciful notion. Meanwhile, the onward march of clean energy is becoming unstoppable.

I believe that the goal of a world running entirely on renewably energy by the middle of this century is far from science fiction, and it is a goal that all of us -- governments, corporations and citizens -- should aim for.

Now, again, take a deep breath and consider who your government should be standing up for: you or the fossil fuel industries?

Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1FBAQgy

If you had just one wish or a fairy godmother to grant you a bit of help, would you ask for more energy? A little more time in the day and the motivation to get more done? What if you … Continue reading →

The post How to Boost Energy: 6 Easy Steps appeared first on Lotsa Helping Hands Blog.

from Lotsa Helping Hands Blog http://ift.tt/1L77tYb

New rules that were supposed to help tackle deadly air pollution in Europe could result in weaker rules than are currently in place in China (notorious for its poor air quality), a Greenpeace investigation has revealed.

The new pollution limits for large industrial plants currently being discussed by the European Union are also several times weaker than what's already been achieved by the best performing plants in other developed economies, including the US and Japan.

Our investigation further reveals that what EU officials identify as the required 'best available techniques' to reduce harmful emissions, would in reality allow several times more toxic pollution than those already adopted by many coal plant operators around the world. In other words, they are not the best available techniques.

This is important, since the process of agreeing new pollution standards was set up to tackle the harmful health impacts of coal and other industrial emitters. Toxic fumes from the EU's coal-fired power stations caused an estimated 22,300 premature deaths in 2010, with a separate study estimating the total for the UK at a staggering 1,600 per year.

Over half the working group members across the EU (183 out of 352) are industry lobbyists. And in dozens of cases, members of staff from coal-burning firms are taking part in the process, not as formal industry representatives, but as government delegates appointed by the member states.

Even several of the genuinely independent EU country representatives have been known to regularly advocate the positions of polluting companies and interest groups, often using statements directly copied from industry lobbyists. For instance, a representative of the UK Environment Agency used a written comment identical to ones made by energy lobbyists Eurelectric and RWE to argue that certain energy efficiency techniques were too expensive. We found several other examples of what appears to be copy and paste from industry lobbyists.

This is a classic case of allowing the fox to guard the henhouse – coal companies should be nowhere near these talks. And while David Cameron has rightly committed to phase out unabated coal power stations, this pledge is undermined by the UK delegation’s attempts to water down air pollution standards. Prioritising the profits of big energy companies over the health of tens of thousands like this is simply unacceptable.

Lawrence Carter in an Energy Campaigner for Greenpeace UK.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1L20f7I

With tuna stocks in trouble and too many fishing boats chasing what's left, reports of new vessels are a cause for alarm. The global fishing fleet is estimated to be two and a half times the size needed to sustainably fish our oceans, yet last month Albacora leased yet another ship, adding to their already bloated tuna fleet that includes some of the world's biggest tuna fishing vessels. We can only hope it doesn't take the same attitude to fisheries rules as its thieving sister ship Albacora Uno . Now Echebastar is unleashing a brand new US$39 million, 90 meter, purse seiner on the Indian Ocean, a new monster boat.

The Indian Ocean is one of the least regulated tuna frontiers, there isn't even a reliable estimate of how much fishing capacity is out there. French company Sapmer is on some sort of a vessel-building binge, and the number of long liners plying these waters is almost too horrifying to think about. But fishing capacity is about much more than just the number of ships, it‘s about their size, power and technology, and Echebastar and Albacora's fleets are among the world's biggest users of devastating Fish Aggregating Devices. FADs, used to boost tuna catches, are responsible for the needless waste of sharks, baby tuna, turtles and other ocean life 'accidentally' caught in the nets. Using FADs compounds the damage done to tuna stocks and our oceans in horrific ways.

Last year a whistleblower helped Greenpeace release video evidence of two of Echebastar's older vessels, Alakrana and Elai Alai, catching and trashing masses of ocean creatures caught as FAD bycatch. Shocking footage documented a trapped whale shark, a ship's deck littered with dead sharks, and fish dumping.

Conservationists also battle the downstream impacts of FADs, laboriously untangling the abandoned ocean junk when it washes onto coral reefs. After Greenpeace released the whistleblower video, we were contacted by an NGO in Seychelles that had struggled to clear FADs owned by Alakrana and Demiku (another ship featured in the video) from a local reef. The tuna industry's use of FADs is effectively relegating our oceans to the status of a trash dump.

Despite using FADs for around 80% of its tuna hauls, Echebastar is trying to get a sustainability tick for the small part of its catch taken without FADs. In a blatant case of "hey, look over there!" the company wants to distract attention from its devastating dirty tuna hauls, by pointing to the 20% it catches in cleaner free-school fishing. We don't buy it. Neither should the Marine Stewardship Council, currently being asked to label it "sustainable". And neither should tuna brands wanting to offer their customers a more ocean-friendly can of tuna.

The newest Echebastar vessel is apparently equipped with a new system to separate non-target species that, "allows bycatch to be returned to the sea without much human interaction". You don't need to be cynical to wonder if "without much human interaction" really means "away from the prying eyes of observers and disillusioned crew". The system also risks compromising the collection of vital bycatch data, crucial to effective management of the fishery and its impacts.

They're right to worry about bad publicity. Last year's video isn't the first time whistleblowers have passed Greenpeace information about the impacts of FAD fishing, and recently a fishing captain wrote to industry publication Atuna blasting the use of FADs.

I quote: "What I'm witnessing now is TRULY ALARMING. Since the implementation of the FAD fishing system with satellite buoys, I have seen a progressive and fast decline in the tuna stocks, especially those species that usually are the target of this fishery, not only in quantity but also in individual size of the fish."

It's not just environmentalists and scientists worried about the devastation being wrought by FADs, tuna industry veterans are also sounding the alarm. Luckily it's getting easier for fishing industry employees to raise their concerns, Greenpeace's secure whistleblower site lets people submit information about illegal or destructive fishing. We should not be surprised when people in the industry speak out, their futures depend on healthy tuna stocks and healthy oceans.

I'm giving the last word to the fishing captain, because I couldn't agree more – including his need to shout:

"IT IS URGENT TO STOP THE USE OF FADS AND REGULATE THE FISHERY."

Karli Thomas is senior oceans campaigner with Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand. She has spent many months at sea in fishing grounds, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Pacific Ocean and as far south as Antarctic waters. Karli coordinates Greenpeace's pirate fishing blacklist and works on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1EXWsTK

Today, the 11th of March 2015, marks the fourth year since beginning of one of the world's worst nuclear disasters: the triple reactor core meltdowns and catastrophic containment building failures at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. It's a nuclear crisis that, unfortunately, continues to unfold.

The widespread environmental contamination largely remains. Decontamination efforts are, many times, missing the government's targets. Massive amounts of highly radioactive water flow into the ocean from the reactor site every day. The location of molten reactor cores in Units 1-3 remains unknown – which is a problem that requires massive amounts of cooling water every day to minimize the risk of another major radiation release.

In spite of these ongoing problems and the fact that many of the over 120,000 displaced nuclear refugees are still living in difficult evacuation conditions four years later, the Abe government in Japan is pushing to restart the country's idled nuclear fleet.

Prime Minister Abe has been touting nuclear as a necessary part of the energy mix, needed for the country to meet its climate commitments. In reality though, it is highly unlikely that Japan will ever reach the 15-20% nuclear electricity targets that have been currently floated by a special task force of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Environment.

Relying on nuclear to fulfill Japan's climate obligations is betting the future of the planet and generations of people to come on a politician's fantasy.

And, how "safe" and "clean" is this energy source, really? If we believe the nuke huggers, it is very safe – one catastrophic accident occurs only once every 250 years, they say.

However, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to tell you we've experienced a few more major accidents than that in the 70 years of nuclear programs, including the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant — with 3 reactors at the site experiencing core meltdowns; the catastrophic meltdown at Chernobyl; and the partial meltdowns at the Three Mile Island and Fermi 1 nuclear power plants in the US – just to name a few.

A logical person would look at this evidence, as well as the industry's track record, and either revise their opinion or revise their prediction models. Probably both are in order.

Unfortunately, the industry, and many regulators, have continued to tow the "safety" line – while at the same time weakening reactor safety standards so that aging reactors can meet them. And the aging nuclear fleet in many parts of the world results in increased safety risks, as components degrade with time and wear.

If we are to discuss "safety" within the context of nuclear, it's also important to broaden our perspective beyond a narrow focus on solely catastrophic accident risks at operating nuclear reactors, to major environmental and public safety risks imposed by the entire nuclear cycle. These include uranium mining; uranium processing to create nuclear fuel (milling, conversion, enrichment and fabrication – each step uses fossil fuels and generates radioactive wastes); radioactive releases during operation – both, routine radioactive releases and accidental ones; and the ever increasing nuclear waste problem. After over seven decades of nuclear technology, final spent nuclear fuel disposal is still unsolved anywhere in the world. Some countries, like the UK, France, and Russia, compound the radioactive waste problem by "reprocessing" spent nuclear fuel — a chemical process separating plutonium from high level radioactive waste, which not only generates an enormous amount of radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent, but increases nuclear bomb proliferation risks.

There are also indications that even in the absence of a major disaster, nuclear reactors may be hazardous to human health – particularly for children.

A Japanese child writes on a placard during the "Peace on Earth" commemoration event for the third anniversary of Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Thousands of citizens gathered against the pro-nuclear government to stop the restart of nuclear power plants in Japan. 03/09/2014 © Kazuya Hokari / Greenpeace

The positive is that we do not need to accept this dirty, dangerous, and outdated technology – neither to keep the lights on nor to meet carbon reduction targets.

Perhaps nowhere is this point more relevant than in Japan. As of the fourth Fukushima Daiichi disaster anniversary, the country will be nearly a year and a half without a single reactor online – and not a single blackout or brownout as a result.

And while successive Japanese governments have failed to enact robust policies that fully support the renewable energy expansion and energy efficiency measures needed to meet the global challenge of mitigating climate change impacts, local governments are stepping into the leadership void left by the national government.

Fukushima City declared in December 2012 that its first objective to revitalize the disaster-ravaged prefecture was "Building a safe, secure, and sustainable society free from nuclear power." In 2014, the prefectural government followed through on that goal with a committment to a 100% renewable energy target by 2040.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Government just announced a record 23% reduction in carbon emissions in the fourth year of its cap and trade program – due in large part to energy efficiency measures that began as a result of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.

These important steps stand in stark contrast to those of the Abe government, which continues pushing for nuclear power – while at the same time developing mechanisms to undermine the development of renewable energy. The nuclear village that Abe inhabits, along with the bureaucrats in the Industry Ministry and nuclear power companies, have seen the clean energy future – and they don't like it. They know that the costs for renewable energy – especially solar PV – will continue to drop and its market share increase across the planet. And these plummeting costs, rapid construction times, and massive carbon savings from modern renewable energy sources, render old, dangerous, and dirty technologies, like nuclear energy, obsolete.

Those who created the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe know that their nuclear power plants have no place in a modern Japan. And they are fighting as hard as they can to stop clean energy progress and shore up their dirty-energy-based profits.

But, for the people of Japan, a majority of whom oppose any nuclear restart, there are massive opportunities on the horizon for a truly safe and clean future. And we, at Greenpeace, will stand with them – against the onslaught of the nuclear village – to ensure that the clean, renewable energy future becomes a reality.

To stand together with the clear majority of Japanese people who believe a #ZeroNuclear future is possible, for Japan and the world, add your name to the petition today.

http://ift.tt/1Mko85I

If you would like to share your own story and hope for our shared energy future in the comments, please feel welcome. (note: we may tweet items from the comments, we will ask you first).

Kendra Ulrich is a Global Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace Japan.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1GqD0NY

Stepping up our campaign for healthy oceans in the world's biggest canned tuna market.

Our global campaign for healthy oceans and sustainable tuna fisheries just stepped up a gear. For the first time ever, we have ranked US tuna brands on their environmental and social standards and released a Canned Tuna Shopping Guide. The results are shocking! Over 80 percent of the tuna sold in the US comes from unsustainable, destructive sources.

In our US canned tuna ranking, Greenpeace found that the vast majority of the tuna sold in the American market fails to meet fundamental sustainability standards. Among the worst performers are the big three brands, Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea and StarKist, representing a combined 80 percent of the US tuna market.

Stepping up our campaign in the US marks a gear-change for our global campaign for healthy oceans. The US is the world's single biggest canned tuna market and our big brands are shifting huge volumes of tuna off the shelves. Getting the US market right, by driving out unsustainable and destructive products and replacing them with sustainably and fairly caught tuna, will reinforce the huge changes already taking place in many smaller markets around the world and mean healthier oceans for everyone. More importantly, it will give US consumers what they want - tuna that doesn't destroy our oceans or mistreat the crews who fish for them.

The ranking, included in Greenpeace's 2015 Canned Tuna Shopping Guide, looked at 14 well-known US national and supermarket house brands and concluded that most do not have adequate measures in place to address sustainability, and the human welfare and labor issues that plague the industry. Eight of the 14 tuna brands evaluated received a failing score, including retail giants Walmart and Kroger.

Consumers should know that popular and trusted canned tuna brands contribute to ocean destruction at an alarming rate by relying on fishing methods that indiscriminately kill all sorts of marine animals including sharks, rays, and sea turtles.

While the biggest brands have so far refused to make any meaningful change, the good news is that other companies are stepping up to provide ocean safe options for their customers. Wild Planet, American Tuna and Ocean Naturals received the top scores and were identified as go-to choices for US tuna consumers – all offering ocean safe products. Whole Foods, Hy-Vee Select, Safeway, Target and Costco also offer more sustainable options under their private label brands.

Our tuna ranking evaluated the sourcing policies and practices of the 14 brands, including whether the fishing method used to catch their tuna harms other marine life, whether they avoid shark finning, and whether they can trace their products back to the sea. We also looked at how equitable and socially responsible the brands are. Poor working conditions are systemic in the tuna industry, and in the worst cases, human rights violations and slave labor take place.

The US tuna ranking is part of a global Greenpeace campaign to help create fair and sustainable tuna fisheries for our oceans and ocean-dependent people, across the world. We've already ranked brands and retailers in many other countries, including the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Australia and Canada, and each time the response is more enthusiastic. Consumers get the support they need to avoid the worst brands, and the brands at the bottom start to raise their game – after all, who wants to come last in the fight to protect our oceans?

As news of our US ranking starts to spread across the States and internationally, it's all eyes on the big US brands! Who will start work to get out of destructive and unfair fishing and who will stay resolutely stuck in their destructive ways?

Your role in protecting our oceans and helping to reshape global fishing starts the next time you take a tin of tuna from a supermarket shelf. Take a look at our Canned Tuna Shopping Guide: http://ift.tt/1MnRy2Q

Share it with your friends and family and then tell the biggest brands in the US to clean up their act and stop destroying our oceans.

Graham Forbes is a Markets Project Leader for Greenpeace USA.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1MpotG5

This week, in a quiet and unassuming European conference centre, a small committee that is part of an international Convention very few people have ever heard about, is meeting to discuss an issue of global significance.

Cynics might point out that this isn't particularly surprising or newsworthy, but when the OSPAR's Offshore Industry Committee (OIC) sits down in the German city of Bonn today, they will have to grapple with the thorny issue of whether or not to regulate oil exploration in Arctic waters. And we think that is big news.

The treacherous, icy waters of the far north are a world away from the genteel streets of a city more famous for being the birthplace of Ludwig van Beethoven, but the meeting taking place there could have far-reaching implications for the future of oil drilling in those northern waters.

OSPAR is a Convention set up in the 1970s to protect the marine environment of the North-eastern Atlantic. Signed by 15 nations and the European Union, its legally-binding agreements have helped clean up and protect a vast area of open water that stretches thousands of miles from the Azores to the northern tip of Greenland.

As around 40% of the total area that OSPAR covers is in the Arctic, Greenpeace believes the Commission has an exceptional opportunity to safeguard this unique and little-understood region from the looming threat of oil drilling. Afterall, one of the Convention's key responsibilities is "to take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and to take the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities."

The risks of drilling for oil in ice-prone waters are well-known. There remains no proven way of clean up oil spilled in ice. Traditional clean-up methods like booms and skimmers simply don't work in icy seas. The efficacy of chemical dispersants is diminished, whilst we can only guess at their long-term impacts on the arctic ecosystem. The in-situ burning of trapped oil is much harder and cleaning up the soot and oil residue left on the ice isn't at all straightforward. And on top of this, you have the intractable problems of remoteness, months of darkness, raging storms and bitter, freezing temperatures.

Faced by such insurmountable problems, in 2014 the OIC discussed whether OSPAR's Arctic region needed extra protection. This made perfect sense because when it comes to the potential consequences of offshore oil drilling, OSPAR aims to "prevent and eliminate pollution" and protect our waters from "the adverse effects" of these operations to help "conserve the marine ecosystem." At the same time the OIC's remit is crystal clear, stating that it must "keep under review the need for actions to prevent potential adverse effects from offshore activities."

This sounds like a perfect mandate to regulate Arctic drillers. However, despite the all-too-obvious risks that oil drilling poses to the icy northern environment, the OIC decided in 2014 that there was "no need" for additional rules to cover oil and gas operations in Arctic waters.

Thankfully the OSPAR Commission didn't support this conclusion, deciding instead to keep an eye on whether new guidelines might be needed in future.

Greenpeace has worked constructively with the so-called contracting parties to the OSPAR Convention for many years to give voice to civil society's concerns about the North Atlantic and Arctic environments. We firmly believe that the OIC has a real chance to live up to the deserved reputation of OSPAR by:

• Recognizing the specific sensitivity of OSPAR's Arctic waters and the need for specific actions to protect them.


• Establishing areas within the OSPAR portion of the Arctic where oil operations should never occur because of the risks to fragile environments.

It is hard not to overstate the threat drilling rigs pose here. The risks of environmental damage from oil pollution are potentially more severe in the Arctic than in any other OSPAR area.

Which is why Greenpeace believes OSPAR should act to protect the Arctic. Now.

Jon Burgwald is an Arctic campaigner for Greenpeace Denmark.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1GAkg23

Four years ago the world watched in horror as the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants exploded across our TV screens and spewed radioactive waste into air and sea. In commemoration of this anniversary, we asked Greenpeace volunteers, staff, supporters and allies to share some of their own memories. Many have also shared their hopes for a #ZeroNuclear tomorrow. We hope you will too.

---

Malcolm Carroll

Malcolm Carroll is from Wales in the UK, and works with People Against Wylfa B to oppose a new reactor. He tweets @Gobhoblin

"Last year in Fukushima, I saw for myself the natural disaster of the tsunami and the man-made nuclear disaster. I met children who had not been allowed outside for 6 months, families who cannot return to their family homes and have nothing to pass on to their children. In 2011, I was in Wales, grieving for people as the disaster unfolded— and growing angry. The same people who brought us Fukushima want to build new reactors in Wales. Was Fukushima a man-made disaster, which could have been prevented? Mr Naoto Kan, Japan's Prime Minister at the time, says that the Fukushima disaster started when we first said yes to nuclear. He's here in Wales now to help Wales prevent a nuclear disaster by stopping the building of new reactors."

Dr. Rianne Teule

Dr. Rianne Teule is the Campaign Director at GP Belgium, a nuclear expert and lifetime advocate of a nuclear-free world. She tweets @RianneTeule

"It was a Friday morning. I opened my computer in the Greenpeace office in Johannesburg and saw the news about the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Within 5 minutes, various nuclear campaigners all over the world exchanged information via Skype about the status of the nuclear power plants in the affected region. By lunchtime it was clear that something was seriously going wrong with the Fukushima Daiichi plant. My body trembled from a mix of emotions, mostly fear and overwhelming concern for those whose lives could be destroyed. Three days later, I joined the Greenpeace Fukushima Rapid Response Team in Amsterdam. And two weeks after, driving through the contaminated areas around Fukushima, I saw the levels on my radiation monitors rise, and it hit me hard: I am entering a new 'Chernobyl' area, where hundreds of thousands of people are involuntarily being exposed to high radiation levels…"

Ful Ugurhan

Ful Ugurhan is a physician from Mersin in Turkey and the current spokesperson for Mersin Anti-Nuclear Platform. Anti-Nuclear Platform tweets @NKPTurkiye

"Mersin is where the first nuclear power plant in Turkey (Akkuyu Project) is planned to be installed. I was in Mersin when I heard about Fukushima. My first thought was "I was unfortunately right". I had just campaigned against the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, stating how risky the investment is in terms of health effects due to waste and accidents. Also, the Akkuyu region is an earthquake zone, so many people held up Fukushima as an example to stress the immense risks. Fukushima means 'Nuclear Disaster' for me. I always support energy efficiency as a first step, not dangerous nuclear investments. I believe that we can easily supply the necessary energy by renewable energy."

Dagmar Dehmer

Dagmar Dehmer is a journalist at Der Tagesspiegel newspaper and she lives in Berlin in Germany. She tweets @dpomondi

"I produced the pages of our newspaper on the 11th of March 2011. When the breaking news of an earthquake came in and minutes later of the Tsunami, I knew it would be a long evening. The reactors of Fukushima Daiichi lost power. I knew this would be a disaster if power for the cooling pumps could not be restored. When I left in the middle of the night I was very worried. The next morning I heard the news and there was still no power. I was unsure if I should already write that a core meltdown was likely. I did not want to cause panic but I knew it was true. I called half a dozen nuclear experts, they all shared my bad feeling. I believe without Fukushima the German nuclear power stations would have run at least ten years longer. I really hope that Fukushima is the last core meltdown we will see. Nature developed very well with the sun as its energy source. I hope, we humans learn from that experience."

Patrick

Patrick is from Lyon in France, and supports Greenpeace as a volunteer.

"On March 11, 2011, I was just on my way to the "Primevère" in Lyon, a major environmental event in the region. We went there to put up a Greenpeace booth and while driving in the car, we heard the announcement of the earthquake and the tsunami hazard. After we had set up the booth, we started talking about what was happening in Japan with friends from other anti-nuclear groups. Everyone was trying to find out more and get online information by using their smartphones. Over the 3-day event, we first realized that there was actually a widespread tsunami and then that a nuclear power plant was affected. From this time, the name Fukushima was burned in our memories. We knew a disaster had happened without daring to imagine the magnitude of its consequences. It was a very unusual weekend. In other years, we used to have fun when meeting each other, but this year the event was overshadowed with anxiety. In my opinion, we have to close nuclear plants in order to prevent another Fukushima!"

Aytac Tolga Timur

Aytac Tolga Timur is a passionate ecology activist, living in Istanbul in Turkey.

"When the Chernobyl plant exploded, I was 16 years old. I didn't know anything about nuclear power at that time. It was first when I came into my 20s and joined the environmental movement, when I started to understand how precious and delicate the environment is; my city, my country and my planet. I was following nuclear issues and whenever I read or saw news, I was anxious a nuclear accident could have happened. Then, one day I heard that Japanese people were threatened by radiation in Fukushima. I remember Chernobyl and the increased cancer rates after the accident. Agricultural lands and rivers were contaminated. After the Fukushima nuclear accident, the same issues had to be faced in different locations, by different people, animals and by the entire nature. Why? For What? In order to understand the value of life, you don't need to be a wise person. Unfortunately, decision makers were not able to see that."

Floran

Floran is from Bordeaux in France, he was a school student in 2011.

"When I heard about the disaster at Fukushima, I was still in High School. I watched the news on TV at home the day after the earthquake. I saw the tsunami sweeping away the boats and the bridges, but I still didn't really understand how powerful it was. I was concerned. Teachers were talking about a possible core meltdown of the reactor extending down to the center of the earth... I never believed in that, but I still wonder why there were nuclear reactors in Japan, in an area with such high level risks! I hope the growth of renewable energies will happen fast and people stop building vulnerable nuclear power plants in such hazard areas."

Wong Wing Fung

Wong Wing Fung is a Hong Kong based artist and curator, who uses her creativity and imagination to tell a story of a nuclear past, present and future.

"I was at the ferry pier watching the news report while waiting for the next ferry across the harbor in Hong Kong. It may seem that Hong Kong is very far from you, yet the world seems much smaller when disaster occurs. I was very shocked as I was already working on the Chernobyl anniversary art project at that time. After this disaster had happened, I was even more certain to connect stories of Chernobyl to Japan and Hong Kong. I am hoping these heartbreaking stories of Chernobyl might help us all to be courageous, face the nuclear crisis and fight for a clean energy future and positive living."

---

In Japan today, all the reactors have been offline for the last 18 months, but the Abe Government wants to restart the nuclear power plants, even though the overwhelming majority of Japanese people do not. Add your name today, to show the Japanese policy-makers and their industry allies, that we believe a #ZeroNuclear future is possible, for Japan and the world.

http://ift.tt/1Mko85I

If you would like to share your own story and hope for our shared energy future in the comments, please feel welcome. (note: we may tweet items from the comments, we will ask you first)

Hisayo Takada is the Energy Campaign Leader at Greenpeace Japan.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1AUYzSd

Today, 3M – the company behind the iconic yellow Post-It Notes – announced a new sustainable paper buying policy. This comes after years of campaigning by our friends at ForestEthics with recent support from Greenpeace.

The policy, which applies to all of its products around the world, includes a lot of good elements. Here are the top five things to take note of:

1. Paper cannot come from sources that threaten High Conservation Value Forests, Intact Forest Landscapes or High Carbon Stock areas.

2. Suppliers must ensure the Free, Prior and Informed Consent from indigenous peoples and local communities before logging can occur.

3. Sources must respect the rights and safety of workers, including no forced or child labor, no employment discrimination, and the freedom to associate (unionize).

4. 3M will increase its use of recycled and tree-free paper, and take steps to reduce the pulp and paper it uses.

5. Regular reporting on its performance implementing the new policies will be shared publicly (with help from The Forest Trust) so we can see how they are doing, and hold the company to its promises over time.

3M has shown it is serious by already putting the new standards into practice. The company has cut ties with a subsidiary of the Royal Golden Eagle (RGE) Group due to its association with Indonesia rainforest-destroyer APRIL. Greenpeace has repeatedly documented APRIL razing rainforests, including the forest homes of endangered Sumatran tigers and orangutans, for its pulpwood plantations. APRIL/RGE has also been linked to serious social conflict and the wrecking of carbon-rich peatlands.

In addition, 3M has notified controversial logging giant Resolute Forest Products that it will need to comply with its new sourcing standards or lose business. Among other things, Resolute will have to show that it is not degrading High Conservation Value Forests or endangered caribou habitat, and that it has resolved conflicts with indigenous First Nations in Canada.

More and more companies are listening when their customers say they don't want to buy products tied to forest destruction. When companies like 3M take action, we take one step closer to a world without deforestation.

Rolf Skar is the Forest Campaign Director at Greenpeace US.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/17XEqUM

There's an old adage that "rules are made to be broken". Whatever your take on that logic, the idea of "rules are made to be enforced" is less open to debate.

A welcome addition when it was introduced on March 3rd 2013, the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR) prohibits the placement of any illegal timber or timber products on the European market. Yet two years on and Greenpeace continues to expose shipments of wood from companies involved with criminal and illegal activities in the Amazon and the Congo Basin finding their way to Europe.

In November last year we forced Belgian authorities to impound six containers of Amazon wood from Rainbow Trading, a company known to be involved in a criminal timber laundering racket in Brazil, as it arrived in the port of Antwerp.

We have continually exposed illegal shipments of wood from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the past two years as they arrived in France, Belgium and elsewhere. Batches of illegal timber from the Congolese Bakri Bois Corporation are still languishing in a facility in the Czech Republic and have yet to be confiscated nearly two years after they arrived, nor has any action been taken against three German companies involved.

Just last week we presented findings on how three Belgian companies are misusing privileges under the EUTR for endangered species by importing illegally harvested Afrormosia from the DRC on the European market.

The question that immediately presents itself is, if there is a law to prevent illegal tropical timber being sold in Europe why is it not being enforced? And the longer it goes unforced the longer illegal logging will be rampant in producing countries. In the DRC alone it is estimated that as much as 90 percent of all logging operations in the country are illegal.

In fact, it is currently so easy to fell, export and sell illegal timber that, in theory, literally anyone can do it. As long as you got yourself a permit (there are many ways to do so even if you are not eligible for one) and supply a pile of official yet ultimately worthless paperwork with your timber, then there is no guarantee that your timber would be seized and confiscated – as it should be under European law – you could cut and export your own wood to sell in the European Union.

As a result, Greenpeace is encouraging supporters to try this theory out for themselves. Write to ministers in European countries and tell them you are thinking of becoming an illegal logger. We will present them with the requests and see whether they decide it is finally time to take action and enforce a law that has been in force for two years now.

In France our team has already decided to find out from environment minister Segolene Royal directly today if she intends to enforce the EUTR properly - following the example of thousands of people who have already asked her to do so in the last few weeks. If she somehow managed to ignore nearly a hundred thousand emails then it is unlikely she could not see the four tonne log deposited outside her environment ministry in Paris today.

Greenpeace France recently published evidence showing how timber suspected of illegality is regularly imported into the country. If Royal and her counterparts in other EU member states do not start to ensure that the legislation and processes in place to prevent this type of illegal activity are properly utilized then this type of illegal activity will simply continue.

Action needs to be taken. As long as illegal timber continues to enter the EU market, and importing companies are able to disregard their obligations under the EUTR, it will be the forests and people of producing countries who truly will suffer from the damage wrought by illegal logging.

Find out how easy it is to be an illegal logger and take action here.

Greg Norman is the Congo Forests Communications Coordinator for Greenpeace International.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1F94OGi

Government members from all over Europe are meeting this week for the OSPAR (named after the Oslo and Paris Conventions) Convention's Biodiversity Committee (BDC) in Cork, Ireland. They have an opportunity to move towards providing urgent protection for the Arctic. OSPAR delegates know well how to take progressive and bold measures for environmental protection.

The OSPAR Convention is the legal instrument for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. It is the only regional Convention that can establish a marine protected area (MPA) in part of the international waters of the central Arctic Ocean in accordance with the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.

In fact, if the proposed Arctic MPA is taken forward, this would not be the first time that OSPAR has used its specific mandate to protect areas covered by this Convention in areas beyond the national jurisdiction. The Charlie-Gibbs Marine Protected Area, and six additional MPAs, established by OSPAR in 2010 and 2012 to protect the unique natural features associated with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge were the first set of conservation areas ever to be established in international waters in the North Atlantic, and the world's first network of High Seas Marine Protected Area.

The ice-covered waters of the Arctic can be the next. In 2014, WWF provided the scientific rationale for and formally nominated the "Arctic Ice High Seas Area", the still permanently ice-covered waters of the Central Arctic Basin which lie within the OSPAR maritime area, as an MPA to be designated by the OSPAR Commission. This area has already been acknowledged by the Convention on Biological Diversity to meet the scientific criteria for an Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Area (EBSA). Although only a fraction of the relevant Arctic ice habitat in the OSPAR area, and of the 'permanent' sea ice in the Arctic as a whole, protection of this area alone would nonetheless be a significant step forward for OSPAR nations in meeting their obligations to protect the marine environment.

The next step towards the declaration of this protected area is the Biodiversity Committee meeting taking place now in Cork.

Protecting the Arctic and its ecosystems is not just a 'a nice thing to do'. The ice-covered waters of the high Arctic provide a range of unique habitats linked to its variety of ice conditions, including a range of threatened or endangered species of animals. Sadly, the forecasts of changing ice conditions due to climate change indicate that the total volume of sea ice will continue to drop over decades the to come. While governments need to take the urgent action to tackle climate change itself under other treaties and conventions, they at least have the opportunity, and the responsibility, under the OSPAR Convention, to put in place what measures they can to help protect species and habitats from other pressures, giving them some greater resilience to ongoing global change.

The OSPAR Convention has been a groundbreaking force for change since 1998 when the Commission adopted highly progressive and ambitious strategies to address environmental protection issues, including agreeing the legal ban on disposal at sea of oil and gas platforms.

Now it is once again time to make history. For the sake of the Arctic and the diversity of species it supports, we cannot afford to miss another chance: countries at OSPAR can take the environmental lead again by agreeing on measures for the urgently needed protection of the Arctic.

Dr. David Santillo is a Senior Scientist at Greenpeace International.

from Greenpeace news http://ift.tt/1DtVfzt