Global Warming Skeptics Make Me "Mad"

Skeptics do make me mad because they will not see scientific fact and reasons but rely on opinions taken from I don't know where to make up their minds.

Really the title is just a lame way to segue into the topic of me possibly being "manic", which really has nothing to do with the environment or global warming. I do take medications (two kinds) for depression and now that the level has been adjusted, I think that part is just right.

However, because of some recent "episodes" at work, I have to see someone about what is behind the behaviour. A co-worker asked me if I had ever considered the fact that I might be manic. Well, no, I hadn't thought anything about that. I knew nothing about it either.

Later I asked the co-worker if they knew someone who was manic, and then said yes, a relative was. So it was hard to discount the advice. I ended up looking it up on the internet. It doesn't look good. A lot of the symptoms seem to apply. I think the question is just which of the categories I belong in.

In one way, it is useful to have some kind of explanation should it turn out to be the diagnosis, as my behaviour in work on at least two, three occasions has been anything but rational. Apparently my boss apologized for me once and told me she and the rest of staff were embarassed for me. Later, I had to apologize to four different groups of people, including three different levels of manager. Then I was embarassed, really embarassed.

I think it is something I need a mood stabilizer drug for. Hard to talk yourself out of what I do when the mood goes from normal to outraged at the snap of your fingers. It also is an answer to one question I had no answer to, which is I knew my mother's behaviour ( inappropriate comments which embarrass herself or others) must have some name to it. Didn't seem to fit in depression. It also seems manic part of manic depressive is also very often inherited. And it is very likely she also inherited it from her mother.

In some way, since I am already comfortable about telling people I am depressed and take medication for it, that it won't be any harder to add the manic part. People should be able to talk about mental illness problems with friends and family as easily as they do about other medical problems or illnesses. But it is not like that. And when you are "just" depressed, people who have never gone through it themselves or have had relatives go through it, think you are just sad about something and it will go away. Sometimes it is a reason. Sometimes there is no reason. Besides "manic" or "bi-polar" sounds like a REAL mental illness, not just that sadness thing people think you have and should pull yourself out of.

I have one button that says, I'm not crazy, I'm chemically imbalanced. People never think there is any physical component to mental illness. I never knew there was any physical component. There is.

There are chemicals called neurotransmitters which assist in transmitting messages from between nerve ends in the cells. When certain neurotransmitters which regulate mood are not available in sufficient quantities, the result can be depression. People who have a genetic disposition to depression may be more prone to the imbalance of neurotransmitter activity that is part of depression.

This explanation about the neurotransmitters is excerpted from:

http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/mental_health/depression.html

But you can find similar explanations anywhere.

I could blame genetics. But it would be more fun to blame the global warming skeptics. It makes just about the same amount of sense as their opinions do.

Toxic Toothpaste

I know. I should have my head examined.

How did I ever think that if the government allowed corporations to pollute our water, soil and air and agri-businesses to spray pesticides over all the produce that we eat, that my toothpaste or shampoo or body lotion would be safe to use. I just did.

Why would my government allow corporations to sell us everyday products with ingredients that were anywhere from mildly to highly toxic. Carcinogenic, bio-accumulative, and hormone disrupting ingredients in things that I use everyday and thought were safe. Not only that, but the government would allow most children these days to be more contaminated with toxic substances than their parents.

Here's some websites where you can see this for yourself. The first one is Toxic Nation, and the headline is: Pollution. It's In You.

www.toxicnation.ca

Scroll down the page until you get to the Latest Reports, and click on Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report On Pollution in Canadian Families or click on this:

http://environmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/resources/publications.html#1

Isn't that cheery? I didn't think so. If that doesn't make you mad, try another website about what is in the personal care products that you and your family use every day. The website is called Skin Deep, though the web address is:

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com

Try searching for the brand of your shampoo or toothpaste. Wouldn't you think a shampoo just for kids like the following would be safe?

L'Oreal Kids 2 in 1 Shampoo, Extra Gentle, Burst of Fruity Apricot

However, this shampoo is listed as a high hazard product (8 out of a 10), with 100% shampoos and 100% conditioners having lower concerns) with ingredients in the product linked to:

-- Cancer
-- Violations, Restrictions & Warnings
-- Allergies/immunotoxicity
-- Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Irritation (skin, eyes, lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concern, Biochemical or cellular level changes

How about a brand of body lotion? An Avon product should be safe, shouldn't it?

Avon Moisture Therapy Intensive Body Lotion

This body lotion is also high hazard (9 out of 10), with 99% other moisturizers with lower concerns. Ingredients in this product are linked to:

-- Cancer
-- Developmental/reproductive toxicity
-- Violations, Restrictions & Warnings
-- Allergies/immunotoxicity
-- Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Endocrine disruption, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Multiple, additive, exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Occupational hazards, Biochemical or cellular level changes

The website that has this information lists every individual ingredient in a product, how hazardous it is, and what kinds of concerns there are with using a product.

Have a look at this article on Alternet, by Vanja Petrovic. Posted August 15, 2007.

The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products.

Investigative journalist Mark Schapiro discusses why companies that manufacture hazard-free products for the European Union often produce toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.

American industry would have you believe that taking potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals out of everyday consumer products--removing phthalates from children's toys and cancer-causing coal tar from hair dye--would damage our economy and result in a loss of American jobs. In his latest book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everday Products, Mark Schapiro busts this myth and reveals the grim fact that some companies, whether American or international, often have two production lines: one that manufactures hazard-free products for the European Union and another that produces toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.

For more on this article:

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/59714

So how do you feel about how your government protects you now?

Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise, in Toronto, September 1-3, 2007

I received a postcard today from Greenpeace. It shows a picture of the Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise going among ice somewhere (Arctic I imagine). It is a ship that gets in the way of Japanese whaling fleet, has done research on the impacts of climate change off the coast of Greenland, and disrupted pirate fishing.

The ship is coming to Toronto September 1-3 and there are public tours from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. at John Quay, Harbourfront.

I have mixed feelings about Greenpeace. Whenever there are comments needed from an international spokesperson about the environment, Greenpeace is usually there to speak out. However, I find the focus of saving whales, etc., a bit remote from my life and the climate change problems of industrialized countries that needs to be remedied.

Don't get me wrong. I don't get particular sentimental about dogs and cats, but I have seen whales to and from Alaska and in the St. Lawrence Seaway close to or at Tadousac. I was particularly lucky to see some pods of Beluga whales a couple summers ago. Tadousac is a great place for watching whales. The road stops and you go onto a ferry to get your car to Tadousac. You can see whales even from that small ferry crossing. If you walk along the beach you can also see the small whales like belugas or minke whales from the shore.

One of the most heart wrenching things I have seen for any wild animal, was a small whale who was being cared for at Mote Marine in Sarasota, Florida. The animal was sick and I'm not sure whether it had also tried to beach itself. Volunteers along with the staff quietly kept the whale wet and took care of him or her. Any visitors were told to keep very quiet in order not to disturb or upset the whale, as being injured was enough of a disturbance.

There is something about seeing a wild animal and, in particular, a wild animal in distress that really was very moving. Later I learned that the animal did not survive. But I will never forget standing there quietly and seeing all the staff and volunteers, who stayed with the whale around the clock, and who were caring for him so very quietly. It was distressing to know that the whale was very very sick and probably would not survive. I think because people do not have much contact with whales and because of their size, people are drawn to them and their plight in a way quite unlike say, a species of fish.

Sometimes I think Greenpeace is stuck a bit and does not realize that many of their boomer supporters who care about the environment are still not the kind of people who will chain themselves to buildings or logs or whatever. I see pictures of people who look very young all the time in the orange jumpsuits bringing attention to some stunt or other. Okay, it does keep Greenpeace in the news; but I cannot relate to that kind of activity. I also believe it stereotypes environmentalists into the chain-yourself-to-the-tree variety.

I believe that the influence of regular people, particularly if they are acting together, can be very strong with government or corporate officials. This is the way that Amnesty International works - many, many individuals who band together to bring attention to a person and issue, by the flood of letters that are sent on their behalf to governments or companies.

I only wish that Greenpeace had a bit more like this that people could do in the letter writing or signing petition online type of action. They usually have two or three things, but these do not change very frequently at all. I think this would broaden not only their support and legitimacy to other groups of people, but that it would provide another avenue for bringing environmental and climate change issues to governments and corporations.

I think

This Can't Be Good - Lake Superior Drops 1 Foot in 1 Year; also Glacier Melting article

There are a few skeptic bloggers (global warming) on blog.ca who say things like, let's stop all the fuss and panic over global warming.

I don't know about you, but this excerpt from an article from the Toronto Star just doesn't seem like a good thing, especially if it a sign of things to come.

I say, Go ahead and panic a bit, and then go shopping to buy a compact fluorescent bulb or a programmable thermostat or a green-friendly cleaning product.

Biggest Great Lake seen heading for record lows

Jonathan Spicer, Reuters
Published: Wednesday, August 15, 2007

TORONTO (Reuters) - Warmer, drier weather coupled with alterations to the waterways of North America's Great Lakes will likely drive Lake Superior down to record low water levels sometime this year, experts say.

Lake Superior, the world's largest body of fresh water by surface area, has declined precipitously over the last decade but plunged down another 30 cm (1 foot) in the last year alone amid an "extreme drought," putting pressure on both commercial shipping and fish habitats.

"That's a dramatic fall," Cynthia Sellinger, a hydrologist at the U.S. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, told Reuters. "Lake Superior has been in and out of an extreme drought since 2003, and now the drought has got more extreme on the lake's western basin."


For more of the article, here is the address: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=280c9963-8017-4439-9f84-79c88cd9418e&k=37510


Someone gave me a copy of June's National Geographic. The cover story is:

The Big Thaw: Ice on the Run, Seas on the Rise

On the first page of the story on page 56, it says:

The Big Thaw, It's no surprise that a warming climate is melting the world's glaciers and polar ice. But no one expected to happen this fast.

An explanation is also on the page to accompany the picture on the facing page. The caption says:

When melt water surging across Greenland's ice drains to the bedrock, the ice sheet slides faster to the sea -- one of the many feedback processes speeding global ice loss.

The part that says: "one of the many feedback processes speeding global ice loss" sounds a bit scary, doesn't it. It is only ONE of the MANY feedback processes. Yikes.

I don't mean to depress you by putting in articles that underline how serious the problem is. It is meant as a motivator to do something about it (besides blogging, I mean).

When I get a bit discouraged, I like to send emails to Harper or John Baird, the Environment Minister - questions, comments, anything I think of. I don't know why, but I find it very satisfying.

In the National Geographic article, there are before and after shots of glaciers - you know, one years ago when there was a sizable glacier, and more recently when it is visibly much, much smaller.

There is also on page 64-65, a diagram spreading out over two pages of the different stages in how ice sheets, like those over Greenland and West Antarctica, are shrinking:

1. Surface melting begs more melting.
2. Melt water fractures ice and lubricates the bottom, speeding flow.
3. Thinner ice has a weaker grip on the land and can't hold the accelerating glacier.
4. Warmer oceans erode floating ice at its base.

Climate Connections For more coverage of Earth's changing climate from National Geographic and NPR, visit ngm.com/climateconnections and npr.org/climateconnections. Then join a discussion in our forum at ngm.com/0706.

I don't know whether I should find another scary, panicky article for tomorrow (for the skeptics) or a good news story.

I have all kinds of newspaper clippings on my cubicle wall at work (and yes, people do think it is weird to have made global warming wallpaper, but putting up so many articles on a whole wall).

All I have to do is remember to bring one home.

Green Bits from The Economist

From from The Economist, on Economist.com, August 13, 2007:

Carbon connoisseur

The baffling menu of emissions-offsets option

When all you want is a drinkable wine at an affordable price, the sommelier's list in a posh restaurant can seem more of a hindrance than a help. So it is with carbon offsets. The list of options can seem long and confusing when set against the simple objective of getting somebody else to reduce greenhouse gases on your behalf. And, given the intangible nature of offsets, buying a dodgy short on a tonne of carbon is just as easy as getting a corked bottle.

Quality is the offset market's most pressing issue, according to a new study of the voluntary carbon market by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance. The report counted 14 third-party offset standards, and seven registries, few of which are more than a year old. Offset retailers that accredit and verify their own products according to proprietary standards at least double these totals. With the price of offsetting a tonne of CO2 ranging from 45 cents to $45, and growing fears of sharp practice by "carbon cowboys," the industry needs guidance on quality.

For more of this article, copy this to your search engine: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9637956&fsrc=RSS



From The Economist, on Economist.com, July 16th, 2007:

Losing sleep over climate change

Poor countries may be worried than rich ones

The biggest problem in the fight against climate change is the issue of how to involve poor countries. Developing-country governments are reluctant to bear the costs of averting climate change. Two reasons are generally given: first, that rich countries are largely responsible for global warming, and second, that people in developing countries have more immediate problems to worry about.

The first point is indisputable. Industrialisation is the rich world started long before that in the poor world; carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for around 200 years, so developed countries have contributed far more of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than developing ones have.

For more of this article, copy this to your search engine:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9637956&fsrc=RSS


From The Economist, on Economist.com, August 6th, 2007:

Another man's poisson

The argument for giving up fish

No meal could have been more perfect than a seafood feast I enjoyed on the beach last week in the San Juan Islands, off the coast in Washington state. A friend and I fired up a grill using twigs gathered from nearby driftwood (yes, it's legal). Our stockpile included a dozen oysters fresh from a nearby farm, plus a slab of tender Alaskan salmon that we marinated in Teriyaki sauce and grilled to a scrumptious pinky-brown. It was definitely the best moment of the summer.

Gather your oysters while ye may - because, come September, fish will be banned from my diet. I tried this once before, when I became a vegetarian at the age of ten. The precipitating event was a pig-roast picnic held by my grandparents. I can still remember my anguish as that huge animal turned slowly on a pit.

For more of this article, copy this to your search engine:
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348924&story_id=9610798

Buzz Hargrove, Canadian Auto Workers, Whining Again About the Poor North American Car Companies

I did not like it the first time Buzz Hargrove complained in the press about how doing something about car emissions or fuel economy would hurt the car companies and result in worker layoffs.
Now he is whining about how unfair it is to the poor North American car companies to have rebates on cars with good fuel economy and penalty fees for the cars that are gas guzzlers. (Are you dropping the Liberals, Mr. Hargrove, and supporting the Conservatives?)

The problem I have with both of these statements is that it is not the fault of Canadian citizens that the North American car companies sat on their duffs all these years while Toyota designed and built and started selling more and more hybrid cars. They knew or should have known that the environment was becoming very important to Canadians and been proactive and adapted their products accordingly.

GM used to huff and haw about when they would ever get a hybrid car up and running. Oh, well, maybe in four years, but only if.... Then GM drops from the number #1 car company in the world down to #2 behing Toyota. All of a sudden GM announces that it is going to have several new designs in no time flat.

Mr. Hargrove, greening a business does not equal losing money and laying off workers. At the 2007 Energy and Environment Conference June 18-20 in Toronto, I heard many company CEOs or managing directors talk about how they had greened their businesses, registered hundreds and hundreds of new patents or designed innovative new products and have made a pile of money in the process. (GM's electric prototype, the Volt, was at the conference, too, along with a Toyota Prius and a Mercedez-Bentz Smart Car.) So I believe North American car companies are fully capable of adapting themselves if they set their minds to it.

During World War II, some car companies in North America were asked to retool their plants to manufacture airplanes or other military items. It did not take them ten or twenty years to think about doing it first. One plant was retooled and in production within a year; another was ready in 18 months.

Should I sympathize with badly managed dinosaur companies who should have acted for the common good years ago and started building hybrids and cars with better fuel economy, instead of flogging the hugely polluting SUVs; the same car companies that were happy to continue polluting the air our children breathe and to continue contributing to global warming despite the fact they knew or should have known this is the most serious dilemma the world is facing.

At one time in the past, corporations were directed by their values and their morals. Now corporations are selfish and greedy and profiteering, like pirates, unconcerned what reprehensible things they must do to society and the environment in the process.

So I am not going to worry about North American car companies who have only been concerned about themselves and shareholders (if they have them).

I worry about my children and the other children in Canada, and what kind of earth will be left for them as adults with children of their own. I worry about how much time is left for us to stop global warming before it is too late.

We Can Make a Difference

I changed the phrase after the Stop Global Warming title so that it was more encouraging. I was reading a book yesterday and it posed the question, what if the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King had been replaced by a "I have a nightmare" speech instead. One would inspire people; the other would make them depressed or angry. Inspired is better.

I sincerely believe individuals can make changes in their own lives which impact those around them and their workplace.

One of my co-workers begged our manager to set up a Green Committee for our unit. The Committee (I'm on it, too) organized a showing of An Inconvenient Truth for about fifty people, who had never seen the movie before. The Committee has also reminded people that we should be using double-sided copies and that any draft letters or other documents could now be double-sided. There are now posters and articles up on bulletin boards in the unit (recycling, changing light bulbs, etc.). Those are some of the examples of what was done just because of one person, my co-worker.

Another thing the co-worker did was to change my mind about what should be my first priority. Before I was on the committee, human rights and child poverty were the issues that concerned me most. However, through reading books on global warming and related issues, I started to realize just how important it was for everyone to start doing something about global warming. I still write Amnesty International letters and sponsor four boys in Armenia through World Vision, but my main focus is definitely global warming now. If we do not fix that problem, we may make not only most animals extinct but also humans.

Because I was on the committee I started to make changes at home as well. My electricity is now from Bull Frog Power, which provides 100% green electricity into the power grid for the electricity my family uses. I have started to buy organic food where I can and also more gentle cleaning supplies. I have changed most of our lightbulbs; we're now just looking for a weird combination tri-light and some other unique bulbs.

Because I was on the committee and started to make changes at home, I also decided to write to all the federal politicians, to let them know I was concerned about global warming and to ask what they did in their personal lives to reduce their carbon impact. The results so far have been very encouraging. A number of the politicians have hybrid cars or walk or bicycle to work.

One politician (not even in my province) gave me a phone call at home, which lasted about half an hour. I was flabbergasted that I was able to provide my feedback to a live politician.
I have also started to do blogging and realize that newspapers allow bloggers to provide comments on various issues, which is another way to let a number of people know what you think about global warming.

I like to write individual, handwritten letters, but I have also sent emails where I want to ask a question or have something to comment on.

Because of what my co-worker started, and how he started me to get involved in the problem of global warming, I can say I definitely believe that I can make a difference.

Afterall, you would not normally think that Prime Minister Harper and his government would be at all interested in global warming. But because of polls showing it was the first concern that Canadians had, it had to be put on their agenda. The government does care what voters think, as they want to get voted in, or stay in, the government.

You can make a difference!