Wisdom Magazine's Monthly Webzine

Wisdom is a web compendium of information with articles, services and products and resources related to holistic health, spirituality and metaphysics.

Home About This Month's Articles Calendar of Events Classified Listings
Educational Programs Sacred Journeys & Retreats Holistic Resource Directory
Article Archives Wisdom Marketplace Web Partner Links
Advertising Information

EarthTalk®

by E - The Environmental Magazine

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Are as many cats and dogs being euthanized these days as back in the 1970s and 1980s when indiscriminate breeding led to explosions in pet populations? -- Mary H., Knox, TN

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the leading non-profit devoted to animal welfare, reports that in the 1970s American shelters euthanized between 12 and 20 million cats and dogs every year at a time when there were 67 million pets in U.S. homes. According to statistics gleaned from the Asilomar Accords, which tracks animal shelter care and euthanasia numbers, U.S. shelters today euthanize three to four million animals, while there are more than 135 million cats and dogs in American homes.

“This enormous decline in euthanasia numbers—from around 25 percent of American dogs and cats euthanized every year to about three percent—represents substantial progress,” reports HSUS. “We will make still greater progress by working together to strike at the roots of animal overpopulation.”

These numbers are only estimates as there is no centralized reporting protocol for shelters. However, the Asilomar Accords method is gaining momentum as a standard for more accurately tracking animal shelter care and euthanasia numbers; it posts annual statistics for some 150 different U.S. shelters on its website.

And what exactly are the roots of the problem? Foremost is irresponsible breeding—pet owners failing to get their animals spayed or neutered, leading to unwanted offspring. Some 35 percent of U.S. pet owners do not spay or neuter their pets, despite increasing public awareness about the pet overpopulation issue.

Another factor is low adoption rates: Only 20 percent of the 17 million Americans that get a new pet each year opt for a shelter pet; the vast majority buys from pet stores, breeders, or through other private arrangements. And six to eight million pets are given up to shelters or rescue groups every year for one reason or another, leaving these organizations with many more animals than they can place in homes.

Beyond these factors, HSUS also cites our society’s “disposal pet” ethos, whereby owners are quick to relinquish their pets for any number of reasons. The majority of shelter pets are not overflowing litters of puppies and kittens, but companion animals turned in by their owners. “To solve this problem, we would need to effect a cultural change in which every individual fully considers all of the responsibilities and consequences of pet ownership before adopting, and then makes a lifetime commitment to their pet.”

The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy is a coalition of eleven of America’s foremost animal welfare organizations concerned with the issue of unwanted pets in the United States. The Council and its partner groups, including HSUS, work to promote responsible pet ownership and reduce pet overpopulation through public education, legislation and support for sterilization programs.

As to what individuals can do, HSUS recommends spaying or neutering their dogs and cats, adopting from shelters or rescue groups, and considering all the ramifications of pet ownership before deciding to take on a cat or dog in the first place.

CONTACTS: HSUS, www.hsus.org; Asilomar Accords, www.asilomaraccords.org; National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, www.petpopulation.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Pharmaceuticals were in the news again recently, how they are polluting water and raising a host of health issues because we dispose of them both unused and used through body waste elimination. What can be done? -- Lucy Abbot, Macon, GA

Pharmaceutical drug contamination in our groundwater, rivers, lakes, estuaries and bays is a growing problem. Millions of us are flushing unused medications down the toilet and discharging them in our body waste—even though sewage treatment plants and septic systems were never designed to deal with such contaminants. Additional discharges by healthcare facilities exacerbate the problem. As a result, researchers have identified traces of pharmaceutical drugs in the drinking water supplies of some 40 million Americans.

A nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1999 and 2000 found low levels of pharmaceuticals—including antibiotics, hormones, contraceptives and steroids—in 80 percent of the rivers and streams sampled. According to Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE), the effects of constant, low-level exposure of pharmaceuticals on ecosystems and humans are uncertain, though “possible health concerns include hormone disruption, antibiotic resistance and synergistic effects.” And antidepressants, says CCE, can “alter the behavior and reproductive functions of fish and mollusks.”

CCE cites a recent Stony Brook University study showing that some fish species in New York’s Jamaica Bay are experiencing “feminization”—the ratio of female to male winter flounder was 10 to one in the studied area—likely a result of flushed pharmaceuticals that can act as “hormone mimics” and cause such effects. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation concurs, citing a number of other studies underscoring the impacts on aquatic life. What irks CCE about the problem is that almost all known sources of drugs in the environment first pass through wastewater treatment plants where they could be filtered out, but these facilities are not required to be equipped with pharmaceutical filter devices.

In light of the problem, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2007 established its first set of guidelines for how consumers should dispose of prescription drugs. First and foremost, consumers should follow any specific disposal instructions on a drug’s label or the patient information that accompanies the medication—and shouldn’t flush the drugs down the toilet. If there are no disposal instructions, the FDA recommends finding out from your municipality if any take-back programs are in place. Also, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sponsors National Prescription Drug Take Back Days across the country at various sites a few times a year.

“If no instructions are given on the drug label and no take-back program is available in your area, throw the drugs in the household trash, but first take them out of their original containers and mix them with an undesirable substance, such as used coffee grounds or kitty litter,” says the FDA. This will make them less appealing to children, pets or people who may intentionally go through your trash, says the agency, which adds that a final step is to put the medication into a sealed bag or other container to prevent leaks.

CONTACTS: CCE, www.citizenscampaign.org; National Prescription Drug Take Back Days, www.nationaltakebackday.com; FDA’s “How to Dispose of Unused Medicines,” www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingOver-the-CounterMedicines/ucm107163.pdf.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What was the BULB Act pertaining to light bulb energy efficiency that just failed to pass in the House of Representatives? -- Betsy Edgerton, Columbus, OH

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (H.R. 2417) was a failed attempt in July 2011 by some Republicans in the House to repeal a 2007 law mandating increased efficiency for light bulbs sold anywhere in the U.S. Sponsors of the bill cited the 2007 bulb efficiency requirements—whereby light bulbs must be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and then as much as 60 percent more efficient by 2020—as a key example of how government overreaches its authority.

“The 2010 elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with government intrusion,” said Representative Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who proposed the repeal. “The federal government has crept so deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what kind of light bulbs the American people are allowed to purchase.” It’s ironic that the new standards were put in place by Republican President George W. Bush as part of his Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a sweeping update of the country’s energy policy. At the time, the bill, including the provisions about light bulb efficiency, enjoyed widespread bi-partisan support.

The fact that the BULB Act couldn’t muster enough votes in the Republican-controlled House to pass by the required two-thirds majority shows that even many conservative lawmakers would rather have the country save money and energy than waste it unnecessarily on inefficient lighting. The repeal effort did garner 233 votes, but the 193 opposed were more than enough to override it given House rules.

Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip in the House, derided the sponsors of the repeal attempt for focusing on the wrong priorities in these dire economic times. “By bringing misguided bills like this one to the floor instead of a comprehensive jobs plan, it is clear that House Republicans are still in the dark.”

Even the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and General Electric came out against repealing the increased efficiency standards, given the strides industry has made in recent years to roll with the punches and design more efficient bulbs, fixtures and electricity distribution methods.

Analysts wonder if the 2007 efficiency requirements will sound the death knell for incandescent bulbs, which have not changed significantly since first invented by Thomas Edison in 1879. While newer, more efficient styles of bulbs—from compact fluorescents (CFLs) to halogens to light-emitting diodes (LEDs)—may be significantly more expensive than their incandescent counterparts (by as much as a factor of 50!), consumers will likely make up the difference and then some over the long term as energy savings accrue. The Department of Energy estimates that the switchover to newer, more efficient bulbs will save American households upwards of $50 per year by 2015, or some $6 billion in the aggregate.

Besides saving money, the new standards will save the amount of electricity generated by more than 30 large power plants, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy (ASE). As for global warming, the new standards promise to save carbon emissions equaling the removal of 14 million cars off the road.

CONTACTS: H.R. 2417, thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2417:; ASE, www.ase.org.

EarthTalk®

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What's the gist of the recent agreement between the Center for Biological Diversity and the federal government regarding adding many more plants and animals to the Endangered Species List? -- J.J. Scarboro, Tallahassee, FL

The agreement in question forces the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to make initial or final decisions on whether to grant some 757 imperiled plant and animal species protection under the Endangered Species Act over the next six years. In exchange, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a leading advocacy group devoted to animal and plant conservation, will withdraw its legal opposition to a May 2011 agreement between USFWS and another conservation group, Wildlife Guardians. CBD argued that the agreement with Wildlife Guardians was too weak, unenforceable and missing key species in need of protection. The new agreement, if approved by the U.S. District Court as submitted in July 2011, would make many of the provisions of the old agreement obsolete.

“Scientists and conservationists have a critical role to play in identifying endangered species and developing plans and priorities to save them. The extinction crisis is too big—too pressing—to rely on government agencies alone,” says Kieran Suckling, executive director of CBD.

CBD reports that the work plan under the new agreement will enable USFWS to move forward with systematically reviewing and addressing the needs of hundreds of species to determine if they should be added to the federal Endangered Species List by 2018. Some of the species in question that will get a closer look—and which CBD hopes are “fast-tracked” for protection—include the walrus, the wolverine, the Mexican gray wolf, the New England cottontail rabbit, three species of sage grouse, the scarlet Hawaiian honeycreeper ('I'iwi), the California golden trout, the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and the Miami blue butterfly, among others.

The 757 species up for listing consideration span every taxonomic group—including 26 birds, 31 mammals, 67 fish, 13 reptiles, 42 amphibians, 197 plants and 381 invertebrates—and occur in all 50 states and several Pacific Island territories. Alabama, Georgia and Florida are home to the majority of the species (149, 121 and 115 in each respectively). Hawaii, Nevada, California, Washington and Oregon each play host to dozens of unlisted imperiled species as well.

“The Southeast, West Coast, Hawaii and Southwest are America’s extinction hot spots,” says Suckling. “Most of the species lost in the past century lived there, and most of those threatened with extinction in the next decade live there as well.”

CBD considers the agreement a big win and a key piece of its decade-long campaign to safeguard 1,000 of the nation’s most imperiled, least protected plant and animal species. Some two-thirds of the species listed in the agreement were not previously considered to be candidates for protection for USFWS. “This corresponds with the conclusion of numerous scientists and scientific societies that the extinction crisis is vastly greater than existing federal priority systems and budgets,” adds Suckling.

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov; Wildlife Guardians, www.defenders.org/support_us/wildlife_guardians.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Some friends of mine were talking about a book called “Plan B” that proposes a plan for rescuing the environment and ending poverty around the world. Is it a realistic plan or just some utopian pipe dream? -- Robin Jackson, Richmond, VA

What started as a book has grown into a movement known as “Plan B” which presents a roadmap for achieving worldwide goals of stabilizing both population and climate. According to Lester Brown, author of the 2003 book, Plan B (and three subsequent updates) and founder of the non-profit environmental think tank, Earth Policy Institute, the plan is based on replacing the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy with a new economic model powered by abundant sources of renewable energy.

Brown argues for transportation systems that are diverse and aim to maximize mobility, widely employing light rail, buses and bicycles. “A Plan B economy comprehensively reuses and recycles materials,” he says. “Consumer products from cars to computers are designed to be disassembled into their component parts and completely recycled.”

Brown even proposes a budget for eradicating poverty, educating the world’s youth and delivering better health care for everyone. “It also presents ways to restore our natural world by planting trees, conserving topsoil, stabilizing water tables, and protecting biological diversity,” says Brown. “With each new wind farm, rooftop solar water heater, paper recycling facility, bicycle path, marine park, rural school, public health facility, and reforestation program, we move closer to a Plan B economy.”

Plan B is an integrated program with four interdependent goals: cutting net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020, stabilizing population at eight billion or lower, eradicating poverty, and restoring the Earth’s natural systems. Where Plan B really hits home is in the numbers: Brown puts realistic dollar values on the various aspects of his plan, and compares these costs with current military spending. Needless to say, restoring the environment and economy looks like a bargain when viewed against what the developed nations of the world spend on being ready for battle.

The beauty of Plan B is that it is feasible with current technologies and could well be achieved by 2020 with a concerted international effort. Brown reportedly wrote the latest incarnation of Plan B as a warning call for leaders of the world to begin “mobilizing to save civilization” given that time is more than ever of the essence. Luminaries from Bill Clinton to E.O. Wilson to Ted Turner have spoken highly of Plan B, and at least one university (Cal State at Chico) has made the latest version of the book (Plan B 4.0) required reading for all incoming freshmen.

Those looking for more up-to-date information on the evolution of the Plan B model and progress toward its goals should tune into the website of the Earth Policy Institute, the think tank started by Brown in 2001 and currently used as a central node in the growing network of thousands of entities and individuals around the globe supportive of making Plan B into reality. Prior to founding Earth Policy Institute, Brown was well known in environmental and policy circles for his work with the Worldwatch Institute, a pioneering environmental think tank he launched back in 1974.

CONTACT: Earth Policy Institute, www.earth-policy.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is “genetic pollution” as it pertains to the bioengineering of animals, fish and plants, and what happens if they cross breed with their wild cousins? -- R. Ahearn, Rome, NY

Genetically modified organisms are those that have been altered by scientists to include genes from other organisms (known as transgenes) that may impart specific benefits. For instance, crop seeds that have added genes which resist the effects of herbicides can allow farmers to spray their fields liberally with herbicides to kill undesired weeds without the fear of killing their marketable crop along with them.

Genetic pollution is the release into the natural environment of these altered genes, creating the risk that they might breed with wild plants or animals and spread out uncontrollably. Reports author Jeremy Rifkin in his landmark 1998 book, The Biotech Century: “Some of those releases…could wreak havoc with the planet’s biosphere, spreading destabilizing and even deadly genetic pollution across the world.”

To follow through on the previous crop seed example: If herbicide-resistant, genetically engineered crops were to breed with their wild cousins, it could lead to the creation of super-weeds undeterred by control efforts. The weeds could, in turn, edge out native species and drive them to extinction, causing an overall loss of genetic diversity. According to Greenpeace, crop genetic diversity is “essential for global food security” and a lack of it can be linked to many of the major crop epidemics in human history, including the Southern corn leaf blight in the U.S. in 1970. They quote noted botanist Jack Harlan who said that genetic diversity is all that “stands between us and catastrophic starvation on a scale we can not imagine.”

To track the growing problem of genetic pollution, Greenpeace International, along with GeneWatch UK, launched the GM Contamination Register in 2005 (the “GM” stands for Genetic Modification). This free online database details publicly documented incidents of contamination arising from the intentional or accidental release of genetically modified organisms into the environment as well as any accompanying negative agricultural side effects. Individuals, public interest groups and governments make use of the register to see where, when and how contamination has occurred. So far in 2011 alone more than a dozen cases of contamination—from Australia, Asia, Europe and the U.S.—have been reported in the register.

Gene pollution as it pertains to crops is only part of the concern. A Canadian company, AquaBounty, is seeking approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to sell genetically modified Atlantic salmon in the U.S. These fish have a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon (native to the North Pacific) and an anti-freeze protein gene from another fish, the ocean pout (native to the Northwest Atlantic). The resulting transgenic salmon produce growth hormones all year long—not just during the warmer months like other fish—and as such reach maturity faster than their non-genetically modified counterparts.

“There are concerns about the impact of GM salmon on wild salmon should it escape into rivers or the Atlantic ocean, because it could out-compete wild salmon for food, or breed with them producing offspring that may be less fit to survive,” reports GeneWatch UK. “This could have serious negative effects on declining or endangered wild salmon populations.”

CONTACTS: GeneWatch UK, www.genewatch.org; Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org/international; GM Contamination Register, www.gmcontaminationregister.org; AquaBounty, www.aquabounty.com.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I know that polar bears are losing ice cover due to climate change, but what are other ways that global warming affects wildlife around the globe? -- Hanna Bond, Hartford, CT

Although perhaps the best known examples, polar bears certainly aren’t the only wildlife species already suffering as a result of global warming. With the sea ice that they depend upon as hunting platforms and places to rest during long swims quickly melting, polar bears were added to the federal list of threatened species in 2008. This contentious listing decision was significant in that it represented the first time the federal government acknowledged that global warming was not only having a noticeable effect on the environment but could also be blamed for the decline of particular species. Environmentalists claimed the listing was reason enough to reign in our carbon emissions sharply, but of course that has yet to happen.

While all organisms on the planet are affected in one way or another by climate change, some are more at risk than others. “Species with small population sizes, restricted ranges, and limited ability to move to different habitat will be most at risk,” reports the National Audubon Society. “Similarly, different habitats and ecosystems will be impacted differently, with those in coastal, high-latitude, and high-altitude regions most vulnerable.”

Audubon, which is primarily concerned with birds, recently published a report based on 40 years of data that found some 60 percent of the 305 avian species in North America during winter have been on the move in recent decades—shifting their ranges northward by an average of 35 miles, as habitat shifts thanks to warming temperatures. The Brant (a coastal bird), the Ring-necked Duck (a water bird), and the American Goldfinch (a land bird), all moved about 200 miles north over the last four decades. While it’s questionable whether some birds will find suitable habitat to the north—we may have paved that piece of land over—the picture looks even more grim for those species not willing or able to abandon old roosts. Also, Audubon reports that the timing of reproductive events (egg-laying, flowering, spawning) across different interdependent species is occurring earlier than ever “in some cases interrupting delicate cycles that ensure that insects and other food are available for young animals.”

Another leading conservation group, Defenders of Wildlife, details how a long list of other North American fauna is in decline as a result of global warming. The gray wolf, trout, salmon, arctic fox, desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, Edith’s checkerspot butterfly, golden toad, Hawaiian monk seal, lobster, manatee, painted turtle, penguin, streamside salamander and western toad are just a few of the species on Defenders’ list that are negatively impacted by our profligate fossil fuel use. Meanwhile, the Wildlife Conservation Society adds the Irrawaddy dolphin of Southeast Asia, the Arctic’s musk ox, the ocean-going hawksbill turtle and others to the list of species that are “feeling the heat” from global warming.

While it may seem futile given the scope of the problem, everyone can still take steps to be part of the solution. Switch out your incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescents or, even better, the new generation of LED bulbs. Bike, walk and take mass transit more; drive your car less. Telecommute when you can. Try to source as much of your food and other goods locally to cut down on carbon-heavy transcontinental freight shipping. If not for yourself, do it for the polar bears, turtles, foxes and toads.

CONTACTS: National Audubon Society, www.audubon.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; Wildlife Conservation Society, www.wcs.org.

EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Freight companies like FedEx, UPS and all those 18 wheelers on the highways probably generate a lot of pollution and global warming. Is anything being done to address this? -- Michael Brown, Washington, DC

Freight companies operating in the U.S. and beyond do generate significant amounts of pollution. While transportation technologies and fuels have gotten more efficient in recent years, freight demands have grown considerably over the past two decades. Today, in the U.S. alone, for example, freight is responsible for about a quarter of all transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Most freight trucks, locomotives and ships run on diesel engines, which are major sources of emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon dioxide (CO2). Repeated exposure to nitrogen oxide-based smog and particulate matter has been linked to a wide range of human health problems, and we all know what CO2 emissions are doing to the planet’s atmosphere and ecosystems in terms of global warming.

According to a 2005 analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHA), heavy duty trucks are the biggest villains, accounting for 77.8 percent of total U.S. freight greenhouse gas emissions. Boat, train and airplane freight contribute10.8, 8.7 and 2.8 percent respectively.

Besides filling up loads completely and keeping equipment well tuned, shippers can reduce emissions via smarter operations and procedures. Software developed by UPS’s Roadnet helps logistics managers re-engineer their fleet routing, preventing tons of emissions and saving millions of dollars and in the process.

Newer Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards aim to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter pollution from freight operators upwards of 60 percent by 2020. They are a step in the right direction, but the failure of Congress to pass substantive federal legislation limiting CO2 emissions means that a growing freight sector will continue to pump out more and more greenhouse gases.

A recently released report by the tri-lateral North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA’s) Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) lays out a vision for how to make freight—the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in North America after electricity generation—more efficient and less polluting across Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

The report identifies some scary trends. For example, emissions from freight-related vehicles grew 74 percent between 1990 and 2008—some 40 percent more than emissions growth from passenger vehicles over the same time span. Also, while emissions by light duty vehicles are expected to drop 12 percent by 2030, freight truck emissions are expected to grow by 20 percent. To start turning the freight sector around, CEC recommends that the three countries party to NAFTA start shifting to lower carbon fuels, putting a price on carbon emissions and replacing crumbling infrastructure. These fixes won’t be cheap, but CEC claims they will save money in the long run and clean up of North American freight altogether.

CONTACTS: FHA’s “Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level,” www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/publications/effects_of_freight_movement; Roadnet Technologies, www.roadnet.com; Commission for Environmental Cooperation, www.cec.org.

Add Comment

Article Archives This Month's Articles Click Here for more articles by E - The Environmental Magazine