Monthly Archives: March 2015

IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 






IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 






IARC: Glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic’



As indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

 


A monograph published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – of which a summary is published in the scientific journal The Lancet Oncology – has branded the herbicide glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The insecticides malathion and diazinon received the same calassification (Group 2A) while the tetrachlorvinphos and parathion were classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) based on convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

The designation follows a meeting earlier this month of 17 IARC experts at the orgnization’s headquarters in Lyons, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of the five widely used organophosphate pesticides.

According to the Lancet article, “Glyphosate has been detected in air during spraying, in water, and in food. There was limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the USA, Canada, and Sweden reported increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustment for other pesticides. The AHS cohort did not show a significantly increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, currently with the highest production volumes of all herbicides, and as IARC notes, “it is used in more than 750 different products for agriculture, forestry, urban, and home applications. Its use has increased sharply with the development of genetically modified glyphosate-resistant crop varieties.”

The full assessments of the five chemicals will be published as volume 112 of the IARC Monographs.

Supported by animal and cell line studies

Additional evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenicity arose from animal experiments: “In male CD-1 mice, glyphosate induced a positive trend in the incidence of a rare tumour, renal tubule carcinoma.

“A second study reported a positive trend for haemangiosarcoma in male mice. Glyphosate increased pancreatic islet-cell adenoma in male rats in two studies. A glyphosate formulation promoted skin tumours in an initiation-promotion study in mice.”

The paper adds that glyphosate and its numerous formulations “induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro.

“One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro.”

Glyphosate “has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption”, the paper notes. It adds that the presence of aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in human blood after glyphosate poisoning “suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans” similar to that performed by soil bacteria.

The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

‘You can drink it like lemonade’

The findings are a fatal blow to industry claims that glyphosate is harmless and the oft-repeated canard that “you can drink it like lemonade” without ill-effect.

It also adds to pressure for regulators including the Europeran Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) to re-examine the basis on whicht he product has been licenced.

The IARC draws attention to regulatory anomalies in the press release that accompanies the Lancet publication, noting: “On the basis of tumours in mice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group C) in 1985.

“After a re-evaluation of that mouse study, the US EPA changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans (Group E) in 1991. The US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel noted that the re-evaluated glyphosate results were still significant using two statistical tests recommended in the IARC Preamble.

“The IARC Working Group that conducted the evaluation considered the significant findings from the US EPA report and several more recent positive results in concluding that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.”

Agro-chemical industry rejects IARC findings

Monsanto, which owns to now-expired patents on glyphosate and maker of the world’s leading glyphosate formulation, Roundup, rejects the IARC findings, insisting that “all labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.”

The conclusion, said Monsanto’s Vice President Global Regulatory Affairs Philip Miller, “is not supported by scientific data … We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

But as indicated by IARC concerns about glyphosate’s cancer-causing properties are long standing and their earlier rejection by US-EPA was paradoxical and appeared to go against its own advisory panel’s recommendation.

And of course the IARC study excludes other concerns as to glyphosate’s wider toxicity, for example as a teratogen that gives rise to birth defects, as a endocrine disruptor and as a genotoxin.

It also does not consider the critical issue of the enhancement of glyphosate’s toxicity caused by other elements such as adjuvants and surfactants in herbicide formulations.

 


 

The paper:Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate‘ is published in The Lancet Oncology.

More information:

 

 






Truth is our country





As Jesus told the people of Nazareth, a prophet is without honor in his own country. In the United States, this is also true of journalists.

In the United States journalists receive awards for lying for the government and for the corporations. Anyone who tells the truth, whether journalist or whistleblower, is fired or prosecuted or has to hide out in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, like Julian Assange, or in Moscow, like Edward Snowden, or is tortured and imprisoned, like Bradley Manning.

Mexican journalists pay an even higher price. Those who report on government corruption and on the drug cartels pay with their lives.

The Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has as an entry a list by name of journalists murdered in Mexico. This is the List of Honor. Wikipedia reports than more than 100 Mexican journalists have been killed or disappeared in the 21st century.

Despite intimidation the Mexican press has not abandoned its job. Because of your courage, I regard this award bestowed on me as the greatest of honors.

A daily fraud perpetuated on readers, viewers and listeners

In the United States real journalists are scarce and are becoming more scarce. Journalists have morphed into a new creature. Gerald Celente calls US journalists “presstitutes”, a word formed from press prostitute. In other words, journalists in the United States are whores for the government and for the corporations.

The few real journalists that remain are resigning. Last year Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year veteran reporter with CBS resigned on the grounds that it had become too much of a fight to get truth reported. She was frustrated that CBS saw its purpose to be a protector of the powerful, not a critic.

Recently Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, explained why he resigned. His stories about the wrongdoings of the banking giant, HSBC, were spiked, because HSBC is an important advertiser for the Telegraph. Osborne says:

“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”

Last summer former New York Times editor Jill Abramson in a speech at the Chautauqua Institution said that the New York Times withheld information at the request of the White House. She said that for a number of years the press in general did not publish any stories that upset the White House. She justified this complete failure of journalism on the grounds that “journalists are Americans, too. I consider myself to be a patriot.”

So in the United States journalists lie for the government because they are patriotic, and their readers and listeners believe the lies because they are patriotic.

Stripped of Truth, journalism becomes propaganda

Our view differs from the view of the New York Times editor. The view of those of us here today is that our country is not the United States, it is not Mexico, our country is Truth. Once a journalist sacrifices Truth to loyalty to a government, he ceases to be a journalist and becomes a propagandist.

Recently, Brian Williams, the television news anchor at NBC, destroyed his career because he mis-remembered an episode of more than a decade ago when he was covering the Iraq War. He told his audience that a helicopter in which he was with troops in a war zone as a war correspondent was hit by ground fire and had to land.

But the helicopter had not been hit by ground fire. His fellow journalists turned on him, accusing him of lying in order to enhance his status as a war correspondent. On February 10, NBC suspended Brian Williams for 6 months from his job as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News.

Think about this for a moment. It makes no difference whatsoever whether the helicopter had to land because it had been hit by gun fire or for some other reason or whether it had to land at all. If it was an intentional lie, it was one of no consequence. If it was a mistake, an episode of ‘alse memory’, why the excessive reaction? Psychologists say that false memories are common.

The same NBC that suspended Brian Williams and the journalists who accused him of lying are all guilty of telling massive lies for the entirety of the 21st century that have had vast consequences.

The United States government has been, and still is, invading, bombing, and droning seven or eight countries on the basis of lies told by Washington and endlessly repeated by the media. Millions of people have been killed, maimed, and displaced by violence based entirely on lies spewing out of the mouths of Washington and its presstitutes.

We know what these lies are: Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Assad of Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Iranian nukes. Pakistani and Yemeni terrorists. Terrorists in Somalia. The endless lies about Gaddafi in Libya, about the Taliban in Afghanistan. And now the alleged Russian invasion and annexation of Ukraine.

All of these transparent lies are repeated endlessly, and no one is held accountable. But one journalist mis-remembers one insignificant detail about a helicopter ride and his career is destroyed.

Truth is the enemy of the state

We can safely conclude that the only honest journalism that exists in the United States is provided by alternative media on the Internet. Consequently, the Internet is now under US government attack. ‘Truth is the enemy of the state’ – and Washington intends to shut down truth everywhere.

Washington has appointed Andrew Lack, the former president of NBC News, to be the chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His first official statement compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization.

The purpose of Andrew Lack’s absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack’s message to RT is: “lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.”

The British already did this to Iran’s Press TV.

In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts. One is known as the issue of ‘net neutrality’.

There is an effort by Washington, joined by Internet providers, to charge sites for speedy access. Bandwidth would be sold for fees. Large media corporations, such as CNN and the New York Times, would be able to pay the prices for a quickly opening website.

Smaller independent sites such as mine would be hampered with the slowness of the old ‘dial-up’ type bandwidth. Click on CNN and the site immediately opens. Click on paulcraigroberts.org and wait five minutes. You get the picture. This is Washington’s plan and the corporations’ plan for the Internet.

The vindictive state against the honest citizen

But it gets worse. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which attempts to defend our digital rights, reports that so-called ‘free trade agreements’ such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (and the Trans Atlantic Trade & Investment Partnership / TTIP) impose prison sentences, massive fines, and property seizures on Internet users who innocently violate vague language in the so-called trade agreements.

Recently, a young American, Barrett Brown, was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a fine of $890,000 for linking to allegedly hacked documents posted on the Internet. Barrett Brown did not hack the documents. He merely linked to an Internet posting, and he has no prospect of earning $890,000 over the course of his life.

The purpose of the US government’s prosecution, indeed, persecution, of this young person is to establish the precedent that anyone who uses Internet information in ways that Washington disapproves, or for purposes that Washington disapproves, is a criminal whose life will be ruined.

The purpose of Barrett Brown’s show trial is to intimidate. It is Washington’s equivalent to the murder of Mexican journalists.

The aim is simple – world domination

But this is prologue. Now we turn to the challenge that Washington presents to the entire world.

It is the nature of government and of technology to establish control. People everywhere face the threat of control by government and technology. But the threat from Washington is much greater. Washington is not content with only controlling the citizens of the United States. Washington intends to control the world.

Michael Gorbachev is correct when he says that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that has happened to humanity, because the Soviet collapse removed the only constraint on Washington’s power.

The Soviet collapse released a terrible evil upon the world. The neoconservatives in Washington concluded that the failure of communism meant that History has chosen American ‘democratic capitalism’, which is neither democratic nor capitalist, to rule the world. The Soviet collapse signaled ‘the End of History’, by which is meant the end of competition between social, political and economic systems.

The choice made by History elevated the United States to the pre-eminent position of being the “indispensable and exceptional” country, a claim of superiority. If the United States is “indispensable”, then others are dispensable. If the United States is exceptional, then others are unexceptional. We have seen the consequences of Washington’s ideology in Washington’s destruction of life and stability in the Middle East.

Washington’s drive for World Hegemony, based as it is on a lie, makes necessary the obliteration of Truth. As Washington’s agenda of supremacy is all encompassing, Washington regards truth as a greater enemy than Russians, Muslim terrorists, and the Islamic State.

As truth is Washington’s worst enemy, everyone associated with the truth is Washington’s enemy.

The empire of chaos and lawlessness

Latin America can have no illusions about Washington. The first act of the Obama Regime was to overthrow the democratic reformist government of Honduras. Currently, the Obama Regime is trying to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina.

As Mexicans know, in the 19th century Washington stole half of Mexico. Today Washington is stealing the rest of Mexico. The United States is stealing Mexico via financial imperialism, by subordinating Mexican agriculture and self-sustaining peasant agricultural communities to foreign-owned monoculture, by infecting Mexico with Monsanto’s GMO’s, genetically modified organisms, seeds that do not reproduce, chemicals that destroy the soil and nature’s nutrients, seeds that leave Mexico dependent on Monsanto for food crops with reduced nutritional value.

It is easy for governments to sell out their countries to Washington and the North American corporations. Washington and US corporations pay high prices for subservience to their control. It is difficult for countries, small in economic and political influence, to stand against such power. All sorts of masks are used behind which Washington hides US exploitation-globalism, free trade treaties …

But the world is changing. Putin has revived Russia, and Russia has proved its ability to stand up to Washington. On a purchasing power basis, China now has the largest economy in the world. As China and Russia are now strategic allies, Washington cannot act against one without acting against the other. The two combined exceed Washington’s capabilities.

The United States government has proven to the entire world that it is lawless. A country that flaunts its disrespect of law cannot provide trusted leadership. My conclusion is that Washington’s power has peaked.

One ring to rule them all …

Another reason Washington’s power has peaked is that Washington has used its power to serve only itself and US corporations. The Rest of the World is dispensable and has been left out.

Washington’s power grew out of World War 2. All other economies and currencies were devastated. This allowed Washington to seize the world reserve currency role from Great Britain.

The advantage of being the world reserve currency is that you can pay your bills by printing money. In other words, you can’t go broke as long as other countries are willing to hold your fiat currency as their reserves.

But if other countries were to decide not to hold US currency as reserves, the US could go broke suddenly.

Since 2008 the supply of US dollars has increased dramatically in relation to the ability of the real economy to produce goods and services. Whenever the growth of money outpaces the growth of real output, trouble lies ahead. Moreover, Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions in an effort to force other countries to do its will is causing a large part of the world known as the BRICS to develop an alternative international payments system.

Washington’s arrogance and hubris have caused Washington to ignore the interests of other countries, including those of its allies. Even Washington’s European vassal states show signs of developing an independent foreign policy in their approach to Russia and Ukraine. Opportunities will arise for governments to escape from Washington’s control and to pursue the interests of their own peoples.

The media’s new imperatives: make money; serve the state

The US media has never performed the function assigned to it by the Founding Fathers. The media is supposed to be diverse and independent. It is supposed to confront both government and private interest groups with the facts and the truth.

At times the US media partially fulfilled this role, but not since the final years of the Clinton Regime when the government allowed six mega-media companies to consolidate 90% of the media in their hands.

The mega-media companies that control the US media are GE, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. (GE owns NBC, formerly an independent network. News Corp owns Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and British newspapers. Disney owns ABC. Time Warner owns CNN.)

The US media is no longer run by journalists. It is run by former government officials and corporate advertising executives. The values of the mega-media companies depend on their federal broadcast licenses.

If the companies go against the government, the companies take a risk that their licenses will not be renewed and, thus, the multi-billion dollar values of the companies fall to zero. If media organizations investigate wrongful activities by corporations, they risk the loss of advertising revenues and become less viable.

Ninety percent control of the media gives government a Ministry of Propaganda, and that is what exists in the United States. Nothing reported in the print or TV media can be trusted.

Today there is a massive propaganda campaign against the Russian government. The incessant flow of disinformation from Washington and the media has destroyed the trust between nuclear powers that President Reagan and President Gorbachev worked so hard to create. According to polls, 62% of the US population now regards Russia as the main threat.

I conclude my remarks with the observation that there can be no greater media failure than to bring back the specter of nuclear war. And that is what the US media has achieved.

 


 

Paul Craig Roberts won the International Award for Excellence in Journalism 2015. This article is a transcript of his acceptance speech at the Club De Periodistas De Mexico, March 12, 2015. It was first published on his website, also available in Spanish.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

 

 






Amazon carbon sink declines as trees grow fast, die faster





Tropical forests are being exposed to unprecedented environmental change, with huge knock-on effects. In the past decade, the carbon absorbed annually by the Amazon rain forest has declined by almost a third.

At 6 million sq.km, the Amazon forest covers an area 25 times that of the UK, and spans large parts of nine countries. The region contains a fifth of all species on earth, including more than 15,000 types of tree.

Its 300 billion trees store 20% of all the carbon in the Earth’s biomass, and each year they actively cycle 18 billion tonnes of carbon, twice as much as is emitted by all the fossil fuels burnt in the world.

The Amazon Basin is also a hydrological powerhouse. Water vapour from the forest nurtures agriculture to the south, including the biofuel crops which power many of Brazil’s cars and the soybeans which feed increasing numbers of people (and cows) across the planet.

What happens to the Amazon thus matters to the world. As we describe in research published in Nature, the biomass dynamics of apparently intact forests of the Amazon have been changing for decades now with important consequences.

Is climate changing the Amazon?

There are two competing narratives of how tropical forests should be responding to global changes. On one hand, there is the theoretical prospect (and some experimental evidence) that more carbon dioxide will be ‘good’ for plants.

Carbon dioxide is the key chemical ingredient in photosynthesis, so more of it should lead to faster growth and thus more opportunities for trees and whole forests to store carbon. In fact almost all global models of vegetation predict faster growth and, for a time at least, greater carbon storage.

Arrayed against this has been an opposing expectation, based on the physical climate impacts of the very same increase in atmospheric CO2. As the tropics warm further, respiration by plants and soil microbes should increase faster than photosynthesis, meaning more carbon is pumped into the air than is captured in the ‘sink’.

More extreme seasons will also mean more droughts, slowing growth and sometimes even killing trees.

Which process will win?

The work we have led takes a simple approach. With many colleagues, we track the behaviour of individual trees through time across permanent plots distributed right across South America’s rain forests.

Together with hundreds of partners in the RAINFOR network, this close-up look at the Amazon ecosystem has been underway since the 1980s, allowing an unprecedented assessment of how tropical forests have changed over the past three decades.

Our analysis – based on work across 321 plots, 30 years, eight nations, and involving almost 500 people – first of all confirms earlier results. The Amazon forest has acted as a vast sponge for atmospheric carbon. That is, trees have been growing faster than they have been dying.

The difference – the ‘sink’ – has helped to put a modest brake on the rate of climate change by taking up an additional two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

This extra carbon has been going into ostensibly mature forests, ecosystems which according to classical ecology should be at a dynamic equilibrium and thus close to carbon-neutral.

Amazon trees are finding it harder to survive

However we also found a long and sustained increase in the rate of trees dying in Amazon forests that are undisturbed by direct human impacts.

Tree mortality rates have surged by more than a third since the mid-1980s, while growth rates have stalled over the past decade. This had a significant impact on the Amazon’s capacity to take-up carbon.

Recent droughts and unusually high temperatures in the Amazon are almost certainly behind some of this ‘mortality catch-up’. One major drought in 2005 killed millions of trees. However the data shows tree mortality increases began well before then. Some other, non-climatic mechanism may be killing off Amazonian trees.

The simplest answer is that faster growth, which is consistent with a CO2 stimulation, is now causing trees to also die faster. As the extra carbon feeds through the system, trees not only grow quicker but they also mature earlier. In short, they are living faster, and therefore dying younger.

Thus, 30 years of painstakingly monitoring the Amazon has revealed a complex and changing picture. Predictions of a continuing increase of carbon storage in tropical forests may be overly optimistic – these models simply don’t capture the important feed-through effect of faster growth on mortality.

Forests’ ability to store carbon is reducing

As the Amazon forest growth cycle has been accelerating, carbon is moving through it more rapidly. One consequence of the increase in death should be an increase in the amount of necromass – dead wood – on the forest floor.

While we haven’t measured these changes directly, our model suggests the amount of dead wood in the Amazon has increased by 30% (more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon) since the 1980s. Most of this decaying matter is destined to return to the atmosphere sooner rather than later.

More than a quarter of current emissions are being taken up by the land sink, mostly by forests. But a key element appears to be saturating.

This reminds us that the subsidy from nature is likely to be strictly time-limited, and deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilise our climate.

 


 

Published on #IntlForestDay, 21st March 2015.

Oliver Phillips is Professor of Tropical Ecology at the University of Leeds.

Roel Brienen is NERC Research Fellow at the University of Leeds.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

The Conversation

 






Wind turbines generating 4.5% of US electricity





The wind turbines are turning across America, and a major report by the US Department of Energy (DOE) says the wind energy sector now supplies 4.5% of the nation’s electricity.

Given the right energy policies and investment in infrastructure, that figure could increase to 10% by 2020 and to 35% by 2050, the DOE predicts.

That will benefit tens of thousands of workers who will be employed in one of the US’s fastest-growing industries. It’s also excellent news for those who suffer the toxic impacts of coal mining, and power station fumes – and for the climate.

It will moreover, will help preserve supplies of increasingly precious water, used in huge volumes by thermal power plants. Many parts of the western US, notably California, are in the grip of a severe long term drought.

“Deployment of wind technology for US electricity generation provides a domestic, sustainable and essentially zero carbon, zero pollution and zero water-use US electricity resource”, the DOE says.

Impressive growth

The rate of growth of wind power in the US has been impressive. In 2011 alone, nearly 3,500 turbines went up across the country. And the Natural Resources Defence Council says that a typical 250 MW (megawatt) wind farm – around 100 turbines – will create 1,073 jobs over the lifetime of the project.

The DOE says costs of wind power are dropping, while reliability and other issues are being sorted out. “Wind generation variability has a minimal and manageable impact on grid reliability and costs”, the report says.

Texas is the top wind power state, followed by Iowa, California and Oklahoma. At the end of 2013, the US had 61 GW (gigawatts = 1,000 MW) installed – up from 25 GW in 2009.

The aim is to increase those figures to 113 GW by 2020, to 224 GW by 2030, and to more than 400 GW by 2050.

The DOE says that if these plans are realised, the emission into the atmosphere of more than 12 gigatonnes of climate changing greenhouse gases (GHG) will be avoided.

“Wind deployment can provide US jobs, US manufacturing and lease and tax revenues in local communities to strengthen and support a transition towards a low-carbon US economy”, the report says.

The trouble is that there is considerable resistance to wind power in parts of the political establishment. The DOE report – while not directly accusing Washington of standing in the way of progress on wind – does say that “new tools, priorities and emphases” need to be set in place in order to achieve wind energy targets.

Driven by tax-breaks – now can it keep on growing without?

Policies to encourage wind development are also required. A special Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), which effectively gave subsidies to the wind industry of about $13 billion a year, was introduced in 1992.

But when the tax credit came up for renewal in 2012, it was not retained in the tax code, and finally lapsed at the end of 2013, although the oil, gas, fracking and coal industries – all major GHG emitters – have continued to receive subsidies.

Political analysts say there is little likelihood that the PTC will be renewed by a legislature controlled by the Republican party – large parts of which are viscerally opposed to giving financial incentives to the renewable energy sector.

The elimination of tax breaks initially slowed growth in the construction of wind energy facilities, but the industry remains upbeat and says investors are still putting money into projects. Indeed the US wind industry may now have reached a level – in terms of scale, cost and proven performance – where it can keep on growing even without the tax breaks.

Rather more critical may be the urgent need to build new transmission lines to carry the power from wind farms to where it’s needed. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), which represents the industry, calculates that about 900 miles of transmission lines need to be put in place each year up to 2050 if the DOE is to achieve its wind power goals.

“The US is blessed with an abundant supply of wind energy”, the AWEA says. “Pairing this homegrown resource with continued technology innovation has made the US the home of the most productive wind turbines in the world.”

 


 

Kieran Cooke writes for Climate News Network.

 






Clear blue water! Pitcairn Islands reserve is Britain’s biggest conservation initiative ever





World’s greatest marine reserve around Pitcairn Islands





The UK Government is to create the world’s biggest fully protected marine reserve encompassing over 830,000 square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific – an area about 3.5 times the size of the UK.

It will cover the entire marine area of the Pitcairn Islands British Overseas Territory, apart from waters within 12 miles of Pitcairn itself, and taking in the waters around the smaller uninhabited islands of Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno.

Collectively the Territory includes just 47 square kilometres of land, and the total resident population comprises just 56 inhabitants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, chose to announce the move in the Budget, delighting conservationists the world over owing to the area’s rich biodiversity.

Pitcairn’s waters host some of the best-preserved marine ecosystems on the planet and are of globally significant biological value. Over 1,200 marine species have been recorded around Pitcairn, including whales and dolphins, 365 species of fish, turtles, seabirds and corals.

Forty-eight of these species are globally threatened – such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle, and some are found nowhere else on Earth – such as the Pitcairn angelfish.

With the designation of the marine reserve, Pitcairn’s waters will become off-limits to all extractive and damaging activities, offering protection from overfishing and illegal pirate fishing, as well as deep-sea mining exploration, pollution and climate change.

Success for local residents and campaigners

“The people of Pitcairn are extremely excited about designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in our vast and unspoiled waters of the Pitcairn Islands, including Ducie, Oeno and Henderson Islands”, according to a statement from the Pitcairn Island Council, which has joined with conservation groups to lobby for the protected status.

Conservationists and the Island’s residents have been campaigning for the creation of a reserve around Pitcairn since 2013. In February 2015 a coalition of over 100 conservation and environmental organisations and scientists launched the Great British Oceans campaign to encourage the Government to create fully protected marine reserves in the UK Overseas Territories, principally around the Pitcairn Islands, Ascension Island in the Atlantic and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Ocean.

The coalition, led by the RSPB, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Zoological Society of London, the Blue Marine Foundation, the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace UK and the National Geographic Society praises the creation of the Pitcairn marine reserve as a monumental step for ocean conservation.

Jonathan Hall, Head of UK Overseas Territories for the RSPB, said: “We’re delighted that the Government has today granted the Pitcairners wish to see a marine reserve declared in their waters.”

The announcement, he added, “builds the network of marine reserves around the UK’s Territories, and we hope that this achievement will heighten ambition to see further protection around other Territories, such as Ascension.”

Members of the Great British Oceans coalition “now look forward to working with the Government on expanding the UK’s marine reserve network throughout other Overseas Territories, and the possibility of designating reserves in the waters of Ascension Island and the South Sandwich Islands in the near future.”

UK is the world’s 5th biggest ocean ‘owner’

Although the UK is a small country in a big world, its colonial history places it among the biggest ocean owners thanks to its 14 of Overseas Territories, whose marine estate adds up to 6.8 million square kilometres, over twice the size of India, and nearly 30 times the size of the UK itself.

The Overseas Territories are also a treasure trove of biodiversity, containing 94% of its wildlife species, including many that are endemic – found nowhere else in the world.

The announcement of the designation of a Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK now has the two largest marine reserves in the world, the second largest being the Chagos marine reserve created around the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010.

This puts Britain virtually level-pegging with the USA, who top the table for the most marine area fully protected following the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by President Obama last year. 

The designation of the Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK Government is now fully protecting nearly a quarter (22%) of waters under British jurisdiction, and has increased the global fully protected area by a quarter.

Excepting today’s announcement, only around 3% of the world’s ocean has any protection at all, and less than 1% is classified as ‘fully protected’. This is despite commitments from 194 countries to protect 10% of the entire global ocean by 2020.

A plethora of praise

Matt Rand, Director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy project, which advocates for establishment of the world’s great marine parks, commented: “The United Kingdom is the caretaker of more than 6 million square kilometres of ocean-the fifth-largest marine area of any country. British citizens are playing a vital role in ensuring the health of our seas. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve will build a refuge of untouched ocean to protect and conserve a wealth of marine life.”

Charles Clover, Chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, said: “Declaring a marine reserve around Pitcairn is a visionary thing to do and the right thing to do. With Pitcairn, Britain is now perilously close to having the largest amount of protected ocean of any country in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and while most would agree this probably isn’t the greenest Government ever, it is certainly now the bluest Government ever.”

Paul Rose, Expedition Leader, National Geographic Pristine Seas, said: “Ocean leadership like this from our Government is exactly right: It protects the pristine waters of our Overseas Territories, sets an example to the rest of the world, giving hope and encouragement to future generations. Thank you UK Government!”

Sam Fanshawe, Chief Executive, Marine Conservation Society said: “Designation of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the world’s largest Marine Reserves is a significant step toward addressing the deficit in global ocean conservation. It’s good to see the UK Government showing some leadership in marine conservation issues at the international level!”

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “This is good news for the marine environment and a positive sign from the Government about wanting to improve the health of the world’s oceans. This decision will be an opportunity to create a sanctuary for marine life to thrive, and unlocks the possibility for the UK to play a global leadership role in ocean conservation.”

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, whose Fish Fight television programmes advocated greater marine protection in both UK waters and British Overseas Territories, said: “Today’s announcement shows this Government really does mean business when it comes to marine conservation.

It is an excellent step forwards towards better protection of our seas and one that will make a genuine difference in a globally important marine habitat.

It’s clear that the British public care hugely about protecting our marine life, and so it’s great to know that our Government is ready to protect some of the most unspoiled parts of the global oceans for the benefit of future generations. And it surely paves the way for even more protection of our seas, both overseas and here at home.”

The Ocean Elders, a collective of global leaders including H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Sir Richard Branson, Jackson Browne, James Cameron, Dr. Rita Colwell, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Jose Maria Figueres, Graeme Kelleher, Sven Lindblad, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Nainoa Thompson, Ted Turner, and Captain Don Walsh, said:

“We are delighted that the UK Government is showing global leadership through its designation of a marine reserve in the Pitcairn Group of Islands. This will offer protection to some of the most pristine waters and coral reefs on Earth. We urge other countries to follow suit and create additional large and protected ocean areas in the face of escalating climate change and constant threats to ocean health.”

 

 


 

 

Principal source: RSPB.

 






Clear blue water! Pitcairn Islands reserve is Britain’s biggest conservation initiative ever





World’s greatest marine reserve around Pitcairn Islands





The UK Government is to create the world’s biggest fully protected marine reserve encompassing over 830,000 square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific – an area about 3.5 times the size of the UK.

It will cover the entire marine area of the Pitcairn Islands British Overseas Territory, apart from waters within 12 miles of Pitcairn itself, and taking in the waters around the smaller uninhabited islands of Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno.

Collectively the Territory includes just 47 square kilometres of land, and the total resident population comprises just 56 inhabitants.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, chose to announce the move in the Budget, delighting conservationists the world over owing to the area’s rich biodiversity.

Pitcairn’s waters host some of the best-preserved marine ecosystems on the planet and are of globally significant biological value. Over 1,200 marine species have been recorded around Pitcairn, including whales and dolphins, 365 species of fish, turtles, seabirds and corals.

Forty-eight of these species are globally threatened – such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle, and some are found nowhere else on Earth – such as the Pitcairn angelfish.

With the designation of the marine reserve, Pitcairn’s waters will become off-limits to all extractive and damaging activities, offering protection from overfishing and illegal pirate fishing, as well as deep-sea mining exploration, pollution and climate change.

Success for local residents and campaigners

“The people of Pitcairn are extremely excited about designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in our vast and unspoiled waters of the Pitcairn Islands, including Ducie, Oeno and Henderson Islands”, according to a statement from the Pitcairn Island Council, which has joined with conservation groups to lobby for the protected status.

Conservationists and the Island’s residents have been campaigning for the creation of a reserve around Pitcairn since 2013. In February 2015 a coalition of over 100 conservation and environmental organisations and scientists launched the Great British Oceans campaign to encourage the Government to create fully protected marine reserves in the UK Overseas Territories, principally around the Pitcairn Islands, Ascension Island in the Atlantic and the South Sandwich Islands in the Southern Ocean.

The coalition, led by the RSPB, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Zoological Society of London, the Blue Marine Foundation, the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace UK and the National Geographic Society praises the creation of the Pitcairn marine reserve as a monumental step for ocean conservation.

Jonathan Hall, Head of UK Overseas Territories for the RSPB, said: “We’re delighted that the Government has today granted the Pitcairners wish to see a marine reserve declared in their waters.”

The announcement, he added, “builds the network of marine reserves around the UK’s Territories, and we hope that this achievement will heighten ambition to see further protection around other Territories, such as Ascension.”

Members of the Great British Oceans coalition “now look forward to working with the Government on expanding the UK’s marine reserve network throughout other Overseas Territories, and the possibility of designating reserves in the waters of Ascension Island and the South Sandwich Islands in the near future.”

UK is the world’s 5th biggest ocean ‘owner’

Although the UK is a small country in a big world, its colonial history places it among the biggest ocean owners thanks to its 14 of Overseas Territories, whose marine estate adds up to 6.8 million square kilometres, over twice the size of India, and nearly 30 times the size of the UK itself.

The Overseas Territories are also a treasure trove of biodiversity, containing 94% of its wildlife species, including many that are endemic – found nowhere else in the world.

The announcement of the designation of a Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK now has the two largest marine reserves in the world, the second largest being the Chagos marine reserve created around the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010.

This puts Britain virtually level-pegging with the USA, who top the table for the most marine area fully protected following the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by President Obama last year. 

The designation of the Pitcairn marine reserve means that the UK Government is now fully protecting nearly a quarter (22%) of waters under British jurisdiction, and has increased the global fully protected area by a quarter.

Excepting today’s announcement, only around 3% of the world’s ocean has any protection at all, and less than 1% is classified as ‘fully protected’. This is despite commitments from 194 countries to protect 10% of the entire global ocean by 2020.

A plethora of praise

Matt Rand, Director of Pew’s Global Ocean Legacy project, which advocates for establishment of the world’s great marine parks, commented: “The United Kingdom is the caretaker of more than 6 million square kilometres of ocean-the fifth-largest marine area of any country. British citizens are playing a vital role in ensuring the health of our seas. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve will build a refuge of untouched ocean to protect and conserve a wealth of marine life.”

Charles Clover, Chairman of the Blue Marine Foundation, said: “Declaring a marine reserve around Pitcairn is a visionary thing to do and the right thing to do. With Pitcairn, Britain is now perilously close to having the largest amount of protected ocean of any country in the world. This is a fantastic achievement and while most would agree this probably isn’t the greenest Government ever, it is certainly now the bluest Government ever.”

Paul Rose, Expedition Leader, National Geographic Pristine Seas, said: “Ocean leadership like this from our Government is exactly right: It protects the pristine waters of our Overseas Territories, sets an example to the rest of the world, giving hope and encouragement to future generations. Thank you UK Government!”

Sam Fanshawe, Chief Executive, Marine Conservation Society said: “Designation of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the world’s largest Marine Reserves is a significant step toward addressing the deficit in global ocean conservation. It’s good to see the UK Government showing some leadership in marine conservation issues at the international level!”

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, said: “This is good news for the marine environment and a positive sign from the Government about wanting to improve the health of the world’s oceans. This decision will be an opportunity to create a sanctuary for marine life to thrive, and unlocks the possibility for the UK to play a global leadership role in ocean conservation.”

Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall, whose Fish Fight television programmes advocated greater marine protection in both UK waters and British Overseas Territories, said: “Today’s announcement shows this Government really does mean business when it comes to marine conservation.

It is an excellent step forwards towards better protection of our seas and one that will make a genuine difference in a globally important marine habitat.

It’s clear that the British public care hugely about protecting our marine life, and so it’s great to know that our Government is ready to protect some of the most unspoiled parts of the global oceans for the benefit of future generations. And it surely paves the way for even more protection of our seas, both overseas and here at home.”

The Ocean Elders, a collective of global leaders including H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Sir Richard Branson, Jackson Browne, James Cameron, Dr. Rita Colwell, Jean-Michel Cousteau, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Jose Maria Figueres, Graeme Kelleher, Sven Lindblad, Her Majesty Queen Noor, Nainoa Thompson, Ted Turner, and Captain Don Walsh, said:

“We are delighted that the UK Government is showing global leadership through its designation of a marine reserve in the Pitcairn Group of Islands. This will offer protection to some of the most pristine waters and coral reefs on Earth. We urge other countries to follow suit and create additional large and protected ocean areas in the face of escalating climate change and constant threats to ocean health.”

 

 


 

 

Principal source: RSPB.