Backyard Tigers
It is difficult to determine why anyone would keep a tiger in their suburban backyard, but the tragedy is that there are more captive tigers in American backyards and seedy roadside zoos than there are in the wild globally. Some of these pets are treated with the same care and love as any family pet, but many more are locked in cages or allowed to pad back in forth in converted dog runs for their exercise. These captives have less protection than their endangered cousins in the wild. A patchwork of state and local laws fail to protect them from horrible conditions, unscrupulous breeding practices and tragic neglect.
An oft-quoted statistic is that there are more tigers in American back yards than there are left in the wild. According to the US Fish & Wildlife Service, there are between 3,200 and 3,500 tigers remaining in the wild globally. By some estimates there are 5,000 in captivity in the US, though there might be more…
According to the World Wildlife Fund, only 6% of America’s captive tiger population lives in zoos and facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums; the rest are in private hands. Some are regulated by the US Department of Agriculture and others by state laws, but some are not regulated at all. “In some states, it is easier to buy a tiger than to adopt a dog from a local animal shelter,” says the WWF.
Humane organizations are seldom prepared to deal with tigers, but there are sanctuaries that provide homes and real care for these animals after they have been exploited and often discarded by their “owners.” The Big Cat Sanctuary Alliance website has a full list of its members and links to their websites.
Faux Meat
Investors like it. Conservationists like it. Even some vegans appear to like it. The “it” is alternative meat made from plant protein. Various faux meat producers such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are beginning to penetrate the market with products that mimic the texture and taste of real meat. There is no doubt that widespread acceptance of faux meat products would put a dent in the 15% of greenhouse gas emissions generated by livestock farming. Still, faux meat doesn’t assemble itself. It requires processing and that processing is energy intensive. The carbon footprint of faux meat is far less than real meat, but there is still a carbon price to be paid
.,,,such meat alternatives emit around five times more greenhouse gases than unprocessed sources of plant protein according to Marco Springmann, a senior environmental researcher at Oxford University. "They're somewhere between unprocessed legumes, and chicken," he says of the climate impact of highly engineered, meaty vegan products.
"If you look at it purely from an environmental perspective, they would still make a big contribution to mitigating climate change," Springmann told DW, "just not as big a contribution as moving to an arguably more healthy diet that includes plenty of fruit and vegetables, some nuts and seeds, whole grains, minimally processed beans and lentils."
So, maybe skipping the laboratory processing and adopting a healthier diet would be even better for the planet. Takes a lot more will power.
Deny This
“It’s quite intense to see ancient, iconic rainforest burn – this delicate ecosystem – and see firefighters here risking their lives and just to see global heating in action.” -- Terri Nicholson, The Channon, New South Wales, Australia
The current government of Australia has shown little interest in acting upon warnings of issues like global warming, climate change or even a climate crisis. In fact, last year Australian voters returned what is essentially a group of climate denialist to power in the country.
Today much of eastern Australia is facing a climate emergency and on Tuesday even parts of Australia's largest city my face some of the ramifications of global warming.
The greater Sydney region will face catastrophic fire danger on Tuesday for the first time since the rating was introduced and fire authorities say conditions in other parts of New South Wales could also be set to worsen.
Eighty fires, the majority uncontrolled, are burning in the state of New South Wales, where Sydney is located. Another 51 are burning in the adjoining state of Queensland. Over the next few days, thousands of climate refugees will be asking their government why it choose to ignore science.
Coke’s Global Legacy
Coca-Cola is one of the world’s most ubiquitous brands. A distinction achieved through aggressive marketing and an effective distribution system. Coca-Cola is also the world’s largest plastic waste polluter according to a global audit performed by the environmental group Break Free From Plastic.
The environmental justice group asked 72,541 volunteers in 51 countries to collect plastic waste. Almost half (43%) of what they found were clearly marked consumer brands. Coca-Cola was named the world’s number one global plastic polluter, followed by Nestlé and Pepsico.
Volunteers were able to select the locations for their clean-up efforts and so the final results may not be a perfect representation of global trends. Nonetheless, almost 12,000 Coca-Cola products were found in 37 countries across the world.
In the United States, Coke’s hold on the top polluter spot was usurped by Nestle, a company whose bottled water is often stolen from communities that really need it so that it can be sold in single use bottles to people who believe that virtually any human activity requires immediate hydration at hand.
You can read the group’s full Global Brand Audit here.
Just Leave It In The Ground
Potentially vast reserves of fossil fuels lay under a disputed piece of the Indian Ocean off the east African coast. Somalia and Kenya both claim the area and their disagreement is now before the International Court of Justice. Not surprising powerful Western nations are picking sides in the dispute in hopes of leveraging that support into lucrative concessions and corporate deals when the time comes to exploit the resources.
This competition for influence over these oil and gas reserves tells two stories: First, is the fact that the world’s large economic powers still see fossil fuel in the ground as critical resources to control. And, second, that economic colonialism is alive and well.
A narrow triangle off the coast of Africa, in the Indian Ocean, about 100,000 square kilometers (62,000 square miles), is the bone of contention between neighboring Kenya and Somalia. Both countries want the area because it supposedly has a large deposit of oil and gas, but it's not clear to which country it belongs.
"The position of the boundary is a gray area," said Timothy Walter, a maritime border conflict researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in South Africa.
For Kenya, however, the boundary is quite clear. It lies line parallel to the line of latitude. That gives Kenya the larger share of the maritime area and it has already sold mining licenses to international companies. But Somalia disagrees.
The wealthy nations have aligned themselves to gain the maximum advantage depending upon how the Court decides. The UK and Norway are supporting Somalia’s claim. That support could be to the advantage of British Petroleum (BP) and Norway’s Statoil.
The US and France have closer relations with Kenya. The US and Kenya are partners in the fight against Islamic terrorist, while France’s Total Oil has a long done business in the country.
Just a thought here, but wouldn’t it be best for the planet if these rich nations would instead pay Kenya and Somalia to leave the oil and gas in the ground. Perhaps a $200 billion investment in sustainable energy in those countries.
Darren Woods, CEO of Texas-based ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, stunned industry observers last year when he announced plans to spend more than $200bn over the next seven years to increase his firm’s production of fossil fuels, along with investing in petrochemicals and refining.