Skip to main content

Reposted from Pakalolo by 2thanks

The Indonesian Navy destroys foreign fishing vessels caught fishing illegally in waters near North Sulawesi yesterday. Photo: REUTERS

Divers and scientists report that Indonesia's reefs are missing their big fish. The mother of all reefs is, and has been, over exploited by illegal foreign fishing ships. Some ships are trawlers that kill everything in the path of it's large and deadly nets. As a result, the coastal communities of Indonesia are fishing for juvenile fish and other protein that they can grind into fishmeal and use as feed for coastal prawn farms.

National Geographic reports.

Indonesia is at the center of the Coral Triangle, one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world with over 76% of the world’s coral species and 37% of the world’s reef fish species within its boundaries. Global trends for this region demonstrate that fishing effort has been and is increasing at a faster rate than any other region of the world’s oceans. Fishery management is failing to reach sustainability. Recent studies have shown that the increase of fishing pressure is threatening the health of fish stocks, impacting coral health, and resulting in underperforming fisheries. This is significant considering that 50% of the protein intake by thousands of coastal communities comes from fish and that hundreds of thousands of people – including many women – have a job direct or indirectly related to Indonesian fisheries.

To date, the challenges of enforcing, monitoring, and controlling catch and effort regulation in Indonesia’s multi-species, multi-gear fisheries have been considered too high. The culprits were considered to be foreign fleets, legal or illegally operating inside Indonesian waters. Also, local fishers would point to roaming groups of dynamite and cyanide fishers as a major problem. Until now, not much thought has been given to how local coastal fishers contribute to overfishing. Since the transmigration programs and programs that provide subsidized technology, today and every day, an armada of hundreds of thousands of small and medium scale fishers put their fishing gears in waters inside the 4-nautical mile zone, along all coasts of the Indonesian archipelago

The good news out of Jakarta yesterday is that the government has had it with this problem and sank a large Chinese fishing vessel.  They also sank 40 other foreign boats that had been caught fishing illegally in Indonesian waters. Beijiing is not expected to take this news lightly. Other regional capitals will bristle as well.

Today reports:

The 300 gross tonne Chinese vessel was destroyed with a low-explosive device on its hull in West Kalimantan, said Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti.

“This is not a show of force. This is just merely (us) enforcing our laws,” Ms Susi was quoted as saying by The Jakarta Post.

The Gui Xei Yu 12661 is the first Chinese boat to be sunk since Indonesian President Joko Widodo declared war on illegal foreign fishing boats last December.

The Indonesian Navy detained Gui Xei Yu in 2009 after it was caught fishing near the South China Sea, a hotly disputed area involving China and South-east Asian nations such as Malaysia and Vietnam.

Besides the Chinese ship, the authorities also destroyed 40 other vessels in different places across the country. They included five boats from Vietnam, two boats from Thailand and 11 from the Philippines, The Post reported.

Shortly after assuming office last October, Mr Widodo launched a campaign to protect Indonesia’s maritime resources and domestic fishing industry, which loses billions of dollars in revenues to illegal fishing each year. He has also pledged to transform Indonesia into a maritime power and, in December last year, orchestrated a much-publicised sinking of three empty Vietnamese vessels.


Suzie Canales never planned on going back home. But, when she saw what was happening to her family, her friends, and her neighbors in her community, she could not stay away.

In 1999, Suzie visited Corpus Christi from Illinois at a time of tragedy. Her sister Diana had passed away at the age of 42 due to breast cancer, and she was back in Texas for the funeral. As she explained to, it was there that she heard people repeatedly tell her that many others in the area around her sister’s age also faced cancer, prompting Canales to begin to question whether or not, in a community home to industrial facilities like refineries and power plants, something in the local environment could have contributed to her sister’s death and the deaths of so many others.

Continue Reading
Reposted from LakeSuperior by LakeSuperior

The U.S. Department of Energy revises wind energy potential
map for the entire U.S. and which shows the areas of the United States
evaluated with increased (or new) wind energy potential with siting of
a larger/taller generation of wind turbine systems that are now available....compared
to  publication of wind energy potential map areas previously considered practical or
recognized from previous DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory
findings on wind energy potential:

See map on PDF page 6.

DOE's page for this report has some other pertinent links of interest:

See also article in Power Engineering Magazine:

Note in particular that wind energy potential of the Southeastern quadrant of the United States is now considered to be improved over previous estimates for this U.S. region.

......Sorry for the abbreviated diary, but I've got a garden to get planted today....and this limited diary is better than no diary for purposes of the information getting out.

Reposted from Holy $h*tters by John Crapper Editor's Note: In researching a book I'm writing I've been collecting CC prognostications. It's an eye opener -- John Crapper
In researching a book I'm writing I've been collecting prognostications about climate change. These have been gathered over time from numerous sources.   But they are projections and hence a best guess as to what is in our collective future. (Obviously the past dates are accurate.)  

I must confess that during the time I have been compiling these predictions the timeframe has been trending towards an acceleration of events rather than an elongation of them.   There have been a shitload of Holy Shit moments in the process of putting this together.  

Even if you allow that only 50% of these predictions will occur you must come to the conclusion that life as we know it will be dramatically altered.  

*A city hits "climate departure" when the average temperature of its coolest year from then on is projected to be warmer than the average temperature of its hottest year between 1960 and 2005. For example, let's say the climate departure point for D.C. is 2047 (which it is). After 2047, even D.C.'s coldest year will still be hotter than any year from before 2005. Put another way, every single year after 2047 will be hotter than D.C.'s hottest year on record from 1860 to 2005. It's the moment when the old "normal" is really gone.
The Timeframe


In 2008 Arctic sea ice hit its second lowest summer ice extent on record (the lowest extent was in 2007). A massive chunk of ice breaks away from Greenland's Petermann Glacier. Several breakups of ice shelves in Antarctica are observed. (NSIDC; Jason Box, Ohio State University; ESA, NSIDC)

The Bush Administration enacts changes to the Endangered Species Act that affect reviews of government projects.

Polar bears and beluga whales are placed on the Endangered Species List.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declares carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

An ice bridge connected to the Wilkins Ice Sheet of Antarctica breaks apart.

Many of the world's major rivers are found to be losing water. (Aiguo Dai, NCAR, Journal of Climate)


China became the largest energy consumer in the world, overtaking the USA

China added 15,000 car to its roads every day and a new power plant every week.  


The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, an international environmental treaty created to limit the production of greenhouse gases, expires. Nations will have to draw up and enact a successor treaty to further limit emissions, should they choose to do so.

2013 - The amount of carbon pollution has already locked in more than 4 feet of sea level rise past 2013 levels. That is enough, at high tide, to submerge more than half of 2013's population in 316 coastal cities and towns (home to 3.6 million) in the lower 48 states.

See below the orange hairpiece for the future!  

Continue Reading
This week I want to honor some of the most hard-working activists on our Beyond Coal campaign - Team Asheville in North Carolina. After years of rallies, public meetings, educational forums, leadership from the Asheville City council,  letter-writing, and even a visit from TV star Ian Somerhalder, on Tuesday, all that hard work paid off. Duke Energy announced it will retire its filthy Asheville coal plant, the 190th plant to announce retirement during the Beyond Coal campaign.

While Duke is unfortunately ignoring Asheville residents' demands of replacing it entirely with clean energy (Duke plans to replace the plant with natural gas), these tireless activists can still claim a victory to be proud of - winning a reprieve for the French Broad river from coal ash, eliminating the region's biggest source of air and climate pollution, and a making a strong show of grassroots power that held one of the nation’s most powerful companies accountable.  

"Duke's announcement to retire the coal plant came with the unwelcome news of a new gas plant, which of course is not the vision we hold for a clean energy economy here in North Carolina," said Kelly Martin of Asheville Beyond Coal. "We claimed our victory, but stayed honest about the outcome. At least now there is an end in sight to the coal ash pollution, the sulfur dioxide pollution, and the carbon pollution from this plant."

Continue Reading
Reposted from LakeSuperior by LakeSuperior

These musings by the Editor in Chief of the American Chemical Society's publication, Environmental Science & Technology, are a worthy read for those interested in the interaction between science, policy, the public and consumer attitudes.

The piece from EST's editor concerns polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), which are fire retardants that have been historically in widespread use in the manufacture of furniture, and which are a hard fought issue of consumer protection and chemical regulation.   PBDEs are contained in the cushion foam and other plastics to retard combustability of those materials.   However, particles containing PBDE can be shed from such foam by mechanical wearing action and material degradation.

Some PBDE compounds are ubiquitous environmental contaminants and have been found in human tissue.

More on PBDE compounds:

PBDEs in house dust and clothes dryer lint:

Reposted from Climate Change SOS by VL Baker

Jane Goodall, the legendary researcher, is known for her ability to communicate with chimpanzees. She develops an emotional and verbal closeness which allows her to gain their trust and acceptance. She then uses that closeness to observe their most intimate actions and compares their behavior to that of her own species to determine similarities.

Goodall, is most concerned about the future of our planet and humanity's part in its destruction. She doesn't pull punches: “How is it possible that the most intellectual creature that has ever walked on planet earth is destroying its only home?”

Donny Moss, writing at Alternet reported on Jane Goodall's NYC lecture:

Goodall, who is 81, spends 300 days year traveling the world in an effort to save it. The biggest problem, she says, is climate change. And the biggest culprit? Animal agriculture.

In a lecture to hundreds of fans in NYC on April 15th, Dr. Goodall explained that agribusinesses are clearing rainforests in the Amazon to graze cattle and grow crops to feed them. Without rainforests – the “lungs of the earth” – the planet’s ability to convert carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, into oxygen is compromised. Even more harmful than CO2, Goodall said, is the methane gas emitted in cow farts. As developing countries adopt Western diets heavy in animal protein, more methane and CO2 are released into the atmosphere, further warming the planet and jeopardizing our ability to inhabit it.

During her talk, Dr. Goodall described some of the other destructive effects of animal agriculture, including land and water pollution, antibiotic resistance, depletion of fresh water resources and animal cruelty[...]

Jane Goodall has this simple advice that each of us can follow to avert the worst effects of climate change:
  • Go vegetarian.
  • Consume less. The more we buy, she argues, the more natural resources we extract from the planet. How much stuff do we really need?
  • Improve the environment in our own communities. Goodall’s Roots & Shoots program, which has chapters in 130 countries, is helping people plant trees, clean rivers and perform other community services in their own backyards.
Reposted from Seattle & Puget Sound Kos by John Crapper
From King 5 news
Right now all entranceways to Terminal 5 in the Port of Seattle are blocked in protest of Shell's plans to drill in the Arctic.  Hundred of people converged on the terminal around 7:am this morning.  It is the top news event on local TV channels.  
“Everyone is out here today, we have scientists, teachers and city councilmembers risking arrest because they understand the severity of this moment,” said Sarra Tekola a student with Divest University of Washington who recently won a vote to divest their school’s endowment from Coal. “Climate change isn't a polar bear issue it's a human rights issue, climate change displaces people from their countries, 40 years ago desertification kicked my father out of his country in Ethiopia and it's going to get worse. This is our lunch counter to sit on, this is our history to be made, we hold the world in our hands.”
A loose network of several dozen groups calling themselves the sHell No! Action Council (SNAC) organized today’s action. SNAC has focused their opposition to Arctic Drilling on the impacts of Global Warming on the impacts on peoples in the Global South and indigenous communities.

The latest fromKing 5 news in Seattle.


Live Blog here

Update:  10:22 am

Food, music, toilets and people calling friends to join from their smart phones.  Terminal shut down.  City Councilperson Kshama Sawant, a political maverick in our midst spoke to the crowd.  

From all indications looks like this will be going on for a while.  

Continue Reading
Reposted from Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse by LakeSuperior

Senator Elizabeth Warren has noted that ISDS is a policy in the new TPP, and she, other lawmakers, environmentalists and human right activists object to ISDS for good reasons.

The full name of Investor-State Dispute Settlement sounds like a harmless process to settle disputes between a foreign government and a corporation that invests in that country. If the host country "violates" rights granted to the corporation under a trade agreement, then the investor may bring the matter before an "arbitration tribunal."  

The U.S. is proud of our democracy and the rule of law so it is curious that this ISDS basically operates in direct opposition to our rule of law whenever possible.

Joseph E. Stiglitz (and other distinguished professors and former judges and justices) wrote a letter to Congressional leaders to state their opposition to ISDS based on impacts to our rule of law. The ISDS is a new legal system for only foreign investor/corporations, it is not available to "nations, domestic investors, or civil society groups alleging violations of treaty obligations."  ISDS panels do not have to follow legal precedent and its decisions cannot be appealed to a court. The ISDS arbitrators are not public servants, but "highly paid corporate lawyers [who] go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next" in secret proceedings. Supporters of ISDS counter that arbitrations are generally confidential in order to foster resolution of disputes; however, this ignores that typical arbitration is between two parties of a dispute while ISDS affects the general public.

ISDS gives foreign investors an exemption from the rules of law and our judicial system. Foreign investors can skip courts and take their issues to a private tribunal to argue that government actions have de-valued their investments.

"Under investor-state, if a regulation gets in the way of a foreign investor’s ability to profit from its investment, the investor can sue a country for monetary damages based on both alleged lost profits and 'expected future profits.'There are no monetary limits to the potential award."
As noted by Senator Warren, these "corporate courts" are on the rise around the globe. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide. But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases."

While ISDS tribunals are not based on precedent, prior cases are a good example of how ISDS can prevent effective actions to address climate change and climate justice, protect environmental resources and protect our health and safety.  ISDS allows corporations to bully nations and people into changing or watering down policies in order to prevent ISDS actions. An investor/corporation claim or even the threat or concern about a claim can inhibit governments from passing effective measures to address matters of public concern that should be handled by government.

Continue Reading
Reposted from Sunday Train by LakeSuperior

Just as national attention has been focused on the sections of Baltimore that have been largely locked out of the revival of economic activity in downtown Baltimore and the Inner Harbor, the new Republican governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, is considering whether to proceed with the construction of the Red Line in Baltimore, as well as the Purple Line in the Maryland DC suburbs.

As discussed in StreetsblogUSA back in January, "Considering to proceed", here, means:

Early in his gubernatorial campaign, Hogan promised to kill the projects, saying the money would be better spent on roads and that the western, eastern, and southern parts of the state deserved more attention. But closer to the election he moderated his views, saying the lines were "worth considering."
Now Transport for American ( has weighed in, producing a report that argues that the benefits of the lines make them well worth their cost.

Indeed, part of their case may well help explain why Gov. Hogan is "deciding" when originally Candidate Hogan sounded like he had already made up his mind. For the Transport for America case for these lines, join me below the fold.

Continue Reading
Reposted from Marcia G Yerman by LakeSuperior

Although the country is over a year and half away from the 2016 presidential election, candidates are stepping up to throw their hats into the ring.

Voters may be exhausted by the time November ’16 rolls around, but the upside is that it will give them plenty of time to dig deep into each entrants position on the environment, climate change, and the commitment (or lack of) to protecting the planet for future generations.

Gallup has put together a poll on the views of the American electorate focusing on the question of global warming, and looking at responses on a Conservative Republican to Liberal Democrat continuum.

On the question of, “When will global warming happen?” — using the response, “Will it happen in your lifetime?” the break down was:

•    89 percent of Liberal Democrats said yes
•    66 percent of Independents said yes
•    37 Percent of Conservative Republicans said yes

On the question of whether global warming was the result of human activity the break down was:

•    81 percent of Liberal Democrats said yes
•    54 percent of Independents said yes
•    27 percent of Conservative Republicans said yes

On the question of whether global warming was the result of naturally occurring changes in the environment the break down was:

•    16 percent of Liberal Democrats said yes
•    38% of Independents said yes
•    70 percent of Conservative Republicans said yes

This information is essential to understand the posturing of most candidates who have to appeal to one demographic in the primaries and another in a nationally contested race between (most probably) two candidates. This becomes clear specifically for those who emanate from within a narrower base core (such as the Tea Party).

Here’s a brief look at the declared candidates:

Marco Rubio: On the record in an interview with ABC news, Rubio stated, “Our climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed.” He doesn’t believe that “human activity’ is causing the extreme changes to climate change “the way scientists are portraying it.” He does not support legislation to ameliorate what has been laid out as industrial causes, seeing them as “destroying” the economy. His point of view has changed dramatically since 2007, when he was not on the trail of pursuing higher office.

Ted Cruz: Cruz does not believe the “data” supports the point of view that humans contribute to climate change. He recently likened those concerned about global warming to the “equivalent of the flat- earthers,” casting himself in the role of renowned scientist Galileo (1564–1642). He also opposes government intervention as a “job killer.”

Mike Huckabee: Rather than answering questions about climate change with transparency, Huckabee has used deflection in recent speeches to comment on the President’s efforts. Huckabee maintains that Obama was adrift in his State of the Union speech, when he spoke about the importance of tackling environmental issues. Huckabee’s response was that America had more to fear from ISIS and “Islamic jihadism.”

Rand Paul: Staking out potentially different ground than many of his fellow Republicans, Paul has publicly acknowledged that climate change is accelerated by the actions of humans. He has implied that he would support regulations that are not at odds with job loss. However, a recent article in Climate Progress, suggests that a seismic shift from his previous stand (climate concern as “dubious stuff”) is suspect.

Carly Fiorina: As recently as an April interview with MSNBC, Fiorina put forth that “a single nation acting alone can make no difference” through regulatory action. “We need to innovate our way out of this,” she said. “That’s what the scientists are telling us.” Six months prior, Fiorina penned an op-ed for the Washington Post entitled, “Companies shouldn’t cave in to the demands of climate change activists.”

Ben Carson: A well-regarded neurosurgeon, Carson doesn’t see global warming as a concern because, “"There's always going to be either cooling or warming going on." He believes the emphasis should be on the EPA working “in conjunction with business, industry and universities to find the most eco-friendly ways of developing our energy resources." Carson also supports building the Keystone Pipeline, assured that it is “perfectly safe.”

Hillary Clinton: With clear statements evidencing that she will follow the initiatives of the Obama presidency, Clinton is a strong supporter of the Clean Air Act’s mission to curb power plant emissions of carbon. Like Obama, she references natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” adding the caveat of concern for “methane leaks” and placement of drills sites. Clinton supported fracking abroad while Secretary of State, a topic examined in depth by a Mother Jones article. As a Senator in 2006, she voted for drilling of the coast of Florida's Gulf of Mexico coastline. Clinton has spearheaded efforts for Clean Cookstoves, a global move to “empower women and combat climate change.”

Bernie Sanders: Sanders is as good as it gets. He has a 95 percent lifetime score with the League of Conservation Voters, and was the highest scoring Senator in the 113th Congress according to the group Climate Hawks Vote. He has pointed to the U.S. military’s warnings on the dire results of global warming, pushed to end fossil fuel subsidies, and consistently advocated for reducing greenhouse emissions. He has reiterated in speeches that climate change is real and that the future of our children depends on immediate action.

Stay tuned!

Demand the Presidential Candidates Give Us a Climate Plan!

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force


Do you think that voters can push the candidates to take a clear stand on climate change and the environment?

34%8 votes
13%3 votes
13%3 votes
39%9 votes

| 23 votes | Vote | Results

Reposted from Pacificshift by John Crapper Editor's Note: Let's help keep the momentum going! -- John Crapper

Washington state legislators are concerned that a $25/ton carbon tax proposed in Carbon Washington’s ballot initiative, I-732, will be too “blunt” an instrument.  So they are reviving a more nuanced carbon-pricing plan proposed by the governor.  This demonstrates the power of citizens to place climate action pressure on elected politicians, and the need for citizen to keep the pressure up.

Meanwhile, Carbon Washington and the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy, which has been considering its own initiative, have achieved a public rapprochement. The two groups have been in some tension, but have now issued a joint statement committing to avoid competing 2016 initiatives.  They could build further collaboration by joining in an urgently needed public campaign to illuminate the promise of clean energy and the need for some form of carbon pricing to drive it forward.

Crossposted from Cascadia Planet

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site