Approach Your Office Space Consciously

Set up your office space so that it contributes to the environment instead of causing environmental problems. The easiest way to do this is to use recycled or remanufactured materials. For example, you might use remanufactured toner cartridges and recycled paper in your printer. You may also want to consider using renewable materials for office furniture; using bamboo chairs, for example, will save energy as this material is renewable.

In addition to using renewable materials, consider buying energy efficient appliances. You can buy Energy Star computers and printers that use less energy and use energy more efficiently. Since these machines use energy so efficiently, you'll save money on your business' utility bills as well as conserve energy for the good of the environment.

Finally, you should practice basic green energy savings techniques such as equipping your office with energy-efficient light bulbs and turning off lights in rooms that nobody is using. You may also want to unplug office equipment at night to save electricity.

Implement Environmentally Conscious Policies

Your brand should be as green a brand as possible. This is attractive to customers as well as helpful for the environment. One of the easiest ways to do this is to set policies that help protect the environment. For example, you can send all bills and correspondence via email rather than using paper bills. If you make it a matter of policy that you don't send out any paper, customers won't object to giving their email addresses and you will save paper.

Equip Your Break Room

The break room is one place where it's easy for businesses to save money and go green. Many break rooms offer a shelf full of paper plates and plastic silverware; instead, purchase reusable plates and silverware. You'll need to have a policy in place to ensure that employees clean up after themselves, but using reusable plates can help save the environment, and your business will spend far less money once it transitions away from disposable plates and utensils. In addition, make sure to have a recycling bin in your break room so that employees can easily dispose of recyclable materials such as plastic and glass bottles.

Another creative way to make your break room more green is to offer wifi service and a couple of laptops for employee use in the break room. Many employees read newspapers or other printed materials while on their break; if you can replace these with online access to news, your employees will be less likely to buy newspapers.

Brand Yourself

It's important to let your customers know that you are a green company and exactly what that entails. It's become trendy for companies to make token gestures towards the environment, so you want to stand out from the crowd. Your marketing materials should announce that you are a green company and that you constantly seek to improve your policies and procedures in order to protect the environment. If possible, give specific examples. This lets customers know that you are committed to environmental responsibility, which is very attractive to them.

Author bio:

Jay Reed works and writes for Utility Manufacturing, a company that specializes in pinion wire manufacturing.

Standing 4.5 meters or 15 feet tall, the cell phone Christmas tree has a festive greenish glow when fully lit. According to representatives, ten employees constructed the impressive tree over a 15 day period. The tree has 32 circular layers and weighs 500 kilos or 1,100 pounds. After the holidays, the Christmas tree will be auctioned to raise money for a local charity.

The store manager Tran Hoang Quan said they created Christmas tree to send a message of environmental awareness to the community while creating a festive statement and cutting down on electronic waste. Quan pointed out that each cell phone contains hundreds of components made with heavy metals, toxic materials and items that don’t decompose or have the potential to contaminate the environment, the soil and underground water supplies.

Quan explained that lead, plastics, bronze, mercury, rare minerals and heavy metals are found in cell phones and other electronic items. When deposited in landfills or improperly disposed, these everyday items can poison the environment. With their recycled cell phone Christmas tree, the electronic store is promoting environmental awareness and encouraging consumers around the world to do the right thing when disposing cell phones and electronics.

Vietnam has more than 110 million active cell phones that have an average lifespan of two years. Every year, the country disposes of 50 million unwanted cell phones with a total weight of 400 tons. In Vietnam and countries around the world, e-cycling programs are becoming increasingly important as a way to safely dispose of obsolete electronics and recover components that can be used to make new items. However, recycling isn’t the only option. Many groups have found creative ways to make functional, beautiful items using unwanted materials.

If you have an unwanted cell phone, return it to a service center, retail outlet or office supply center. Consumers can also consider donating items to organization that sell unwanted cell phones to recycling companies and use the proceeds to fund community programs.

"Excessive amounts of water are used...this cannot be justified from any perspective," according to lead author Maria del Pino Palacios Diaz of the university’s Department of Animal Pathology, Animal Production and Food Science and Technology.

Although the cost of water in the area is considered exorbitant, local golf courses continue to use more water than necessary. Overwatering the plants by such a high percentage helps to keep substances from building up in the soil, but raises the chance that the water in the aquifer beneath the area will be contaminated.

The study, published in the Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, also examined the effect on the environment of using reclaimed water that had previously been desalinated for human use. Although this study only examined the effects on one course, Palacios Diaz believes the results could apply to other courses “in semi-arid or arid areas… with similar soil characteristics."

The golf course that was studied is irrigated with desalinated water that has been reclaimed and desalinated again. Reclaimed water is used in an attempt to lower the environmental impact of maintaining a lush green space in a naturally dry area. However, according to the researchers, there is more to protecting the environment than using recycled water. "The combination of water with low salinity and a high proportion of exchangeable sodium… can have a negative impact on the structural stability of soil, which loses fertility...because of losing its capacity to drain away water," said Palacios Diaz.

In addition, the researchers say that the quality of the water isn’t the only thing golf courses who wish to practice sustainable management should be concerned about. They should also be concerned about how much water is used and how often it is used. "It is assumed that the consequences only depend on the quality of the water, when in fact the other factors normally have a greater influence," according to the study.

Does that mean it’s time to put your golf clothes in mothballs? There’s no need for such drastic action, according to researchers. They suggest courses try "adapting the species and varieties...choosing types that are more tolerant of salinity and...reducing the cleaning requirements.” Interestingly, the course that was studied had done precisely that, but had never followed through by reducing the amount of water the plants were given.

As a result, the researchers call for watering amount and frequency to be calculated based on the needs of the plants used. Currently, local laws require the use of reclaimed water but do not address the sustainability criteria for the use of reclaimed water on golf courses. The reason behind this may be the complexity of the issue. According to the authors of the study, "Such criteria are poorly understood and, as a result, are generally not fulfilled."

Researchers from the University of Sheffield conducted surveys of residents of Manchester and Sheffield to determine how much people would agree to pay in additional taxes or housing costs for green spaces in their communities. They discovered that not only were people willing to pay more for community green spaces, the amount they were willing to pay increased as the spaces became more heavily wooded.

Citizens of Sheffield and Manchester were shown graphic proposals of various development projects that could be implemented in their areas and were asked how much additional money they would willingly pay for each proposal.

Residents of Whitworth Street in Manchester were willing to pay the equivalent of $2.29 additional each month to keep their street’s current state. They would pay the equivalent of an extra $2.52 per month for the addition of small ornamental trees. For large forest trees and a grass space, they would pay up to the equivalent of $3.65 extra per month.

Similarly, in Sheffield near Blonk Street, residents agreed to pay the equivalent of $6.69 more per month to maintain recent improvements that included a new footbridge, a riverside walkway and new flood defense projects. They would be willing to pay the equivalent of $12.53 more per month for additional landscaping in the area, and they would pay the equivalent of a whopping $16.93 per month if the riverside was returned to its natural state and native vegetation was reestablished.

When residents were asked how much they would pay for various development scenarios in the Nursery Street area alongside the River Don in Sheffield, researchers discovered that the greener the planned development, the more people would willingly pay. A scenario that would allow new development very close to the water’s edge was worth the equivalent of $6.06 to residents, while a plan that would create a green buffer between buildings and the river was valued at the equivalent of $10.77. When developers proposed creating a large green space, residents were willing to pay the equivalent of an extra $45.74 per month.

Funding for the project was provided by Interreg IVB North West Europe which is dedicated to promoting strong and prosperous communities. During the study, the University worked in cooperation with local policy makers including the South Yorkshire Forest Partnership and the Red Rose Forest, Greater Manchester´s Community Forest.

The study is part of the Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE) project by South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, which is dedicated to demonstrating the economic value of community green spaces, in partnership with the University of Sheffield’s Urban River Corridors and Sustainable Living Agendas (URSULA) project. Ursula receives funding from the British government through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

"The results of this research will be used to help to improve the design of green infrastructure investments so that they more closely meet the preferences of the local communities that use them,” said John Henneberry, a professor at the University of Sheffield's Department of Town and Regional Planning

According to Tom Wild, who is the director of the South Yorkshire Forest Partnership. "This is great news and a really important piece of evidence. This work proves that attractive, green landscapes really do help create the right setting for investment, to help deliver more sustainable jobs and growth. It couldn't come at a better time, when we are all having to think more carefully about future priorities for what little funding is available.

The first cudgel in the warmers’ arsenal is that of claiming a “consensus.” How does the consensus argument stand up to examination?  First, science has never, ever been decided by consensus. Rather, it has invariably been determined by experimentation and hypothesis testing, tempered by a healthy dose of free, unconstrained peer-review. One need look no further for evidence of this than by quoting as Galileo Galilei, another contrarian astronomer once stated about the so-called “consensus” of his age, "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."  If one needs a more recent scientist saying the same thing, look no further than the famed Richard P. Feynman, known for his work on quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum electrodynamics, who simply noted that rather than consensus, “Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth.” (Or as one writer at ClimateRealists.com summarizes Feynman, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”  Unfortunately, Al Gore, who flunked out of grad school in a humanities area, missed that lesson. Ultimately, the real proof the global warmers use is spelled out by FrontPageMag.com, which notes that “alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change.”

Similar to the observations made in Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Paul Davies, in the introduction to his book on Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics, notes similarly that “There is a popular misconception that science is an impersonal, dispassionate, and thoroughly objective enterprise. Whereas most other human activities are dominated by fashions, fads and personalities, science is supposed to be constrained by agreed rules of procedure and rigorous tests. It is the results that count, not the people who produce them. This is, of course, manifest nonsense. Science is a people driven activity like all human endeavour, and just as subject to fashion and whim. In this case, fashion is set not so much by choice of subject matter, but the way scientists think about the world.” And, unfortunately, there is one way to think about the world - the politically correct way. Otherwise you figuratively or literally starve, shunned and alone, under the modern day climactic Robespierres.

A couple history lessons are instructive: In the 1800s, before Pasteur’s discoveries, Ignaz Semmelweis insisted doctors wash their hands between obstetric patients. Deaths dropped dramatically in his Vienna hospital. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia blandly puts it, “Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands… and (his hand washing) practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.” Ironically, in 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died of septicemia, at age 47. And if one thinks death, or death threats, are hyperbole, look no further than Dr. Tim Ball, Univ. of Winnipeg climatologist, who spoke out against the warmists in a documentary titled The Great Global Warming Swindle. For his heresy, Ball has received death threats, such as: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming…”  Ann Coulter summarizes this sorry occurrence by noting “Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: ‘If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics...’"  Of course, in Coulter’s inimitable style, she then added about the faux religion of Greenism, “Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.”

Similarly, the “consensus” argument was also wielded by none other than Adolf Hitler and his Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist Workers’ Party) against Albert Einstein. Just consider the book One Hundred Authors against Einstein, from http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Hundert-Autoren.pdf/  In response, Einstein simply noted, why 100? Only one would be needed, if his data were correct.  Sadly, the left and its warmers – as was said about the feckless Bourbon kings by Talleyrand -  have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.

In sum, the consensus has no merit, either historically or scientifically. Rather, it is being wielded as a rhetorical device to hid the fact that the global warming emperor has no clothes.

Now the Japanese authorities are telling us that 11,500 tons of "moderately radioactive" water is going to be purposely released into the Pacific Ocean.

Are they nuts?

Have they completely lost their minds?

It has also come out that there are huge holes through which massive amounts of highly radioactive water have been constantly pouring into the ocean.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for the nuclear safety agency in Japan, recently made the following shocking admission about the efforts to close these holes....

“From the afternoon, the workers began pouring polymeric powder, sawdust, newspaper – things we could think of to clog up the holes.”

Seriously?

They are trying to close these holes with sawdust and newspaper?

Amazingly, U.S. workers are actually being recruited to go over to Japan and work at Fukushima.

The pay is apparently going to be very good, so if you go over there you could end up with a lot of extra cash.

But you might not live long enough to spend much of it.

In the United States, we now also have to worry about radiation in milk.

There have already been reports of radioactive material showing up in milk in Washington, California and Arizona.

Ick!

So far, most of the attention in the mainstream media has been focused on the radioactive iodine-131 that is being released at Fukushima.

But iodine-131 only has a half-life of about 8 days.

The radioactive cesium-137 being released at Fukushima could end up being a much larger long-term threat.

As I wrote about recently, radioactive cesium-137 is being released at 60% of the level that it was being released at during the Chernobyl disaster.

Considering the fact that Cesium-137 has a half-life of approximately 30 years, that is a very sobering statistic.

So will cesium-137 be showing up in our water, milk and food for many years to come?

That is not a pleasant thing to think about.

Let us hope and pray that the folks over in Japan get their act together.

We certainly are doing our best to destroy the environment.  We have already polluted the earth so badly that it is pretty much impossible for humanity to repair it.

Meanwhile, many in the "green movement" actually want more nuclear reactors.  Apparently those "environmentalists" fear the myth of global warming far more than the threat of more nuclear holocausts.

Hopefully what is happening in Japan will cause at least some environmentalists to wake up.  This is one of the greatest environmental disasters of all time and it should cause all of us to reevaluate what we believe about nuclear energy.

There is at least one nuclear expert that claims that it will be 50 to 100 years before any of the spent nuclear fuel rods at the Fukushima complex will cool down enough to be removed from the facility.

That is a long time to wait.

Are the Japanese going to wait much longer to implement the "Chernobyl solution"?

Will the "Chernobyl solution" even work in this case?

There are a lot of questions that we don't have answers to right now.

But what we do know is that this facility is constantly putting out massive amounts of radiation which will have an impact on the environment for many years to come.

Let us pray that this crisis does not last much longer because it is already a horror of unprecedented magnitude.

If you care about the environment, you should not want this to ever happen again.  It is time to completely reexamine what we believe about nuclear power.

Related articles

• Japan nuclear crisis: workers using newspaper and sawdust to block pipes (telegraph.co.uk)
• Governor of Fukushima and Mayor of Town Near Nuclear Reactors Slam Government Response to Nuclear Crisis (ritholtz.com)
• "Japan: Experts predict Fukushima will eclipse Chernobyl disaster-AFP" and related posts (facthai.wordpress.com)

A video detailing these lab tests was recently posted on YouTube.... 

The following is the description for the video that was posted on YouTube....

Oil and water samples were taken from both the Shores of Grand Isle and from 20 miles out. The preliminary analysis was done at an academic analytical chemistry laboratory. Looking for the likely pollutants from the deep water Horizon Oil spill. It was focused on the detection of benzene and propylene glycol. Benzene and other highly toxic contaminants were very low however the concentration of propylene glycol was between 360 and 440 parts per million. Just 25 parts per million is know to kill most fish and propylene glycol is just one of many ingredients found in Corexit. In short, the Gulf is being poisoned by BP's usage of the dispersants even after the EPA asked them to stop back in May. We are willing to provide ANY respected/known laboratory these samples or provide them with more. This is very serious to all people and marine life in and around the Gulf.

The media are being treated like the enemy.  Already there have been many reports of how the media have been harassed and intimidated down in the Gulf of Mexico.  But now BP and the U.S. government have just decided to shut free speech down altogether in the Gulf.  Apparently they are much more comfortable when their inaction and incompetence is not exposed for the entire world to see.

But what harm is the media really doing down there in the Gulf?  Well, other than showing how badly the U.S. government and BP are handling the situation.  The truth is that the American people deserve to know what is going on.  But now the media will not be able to get pictures or video of anything important.

In a recent article, columnist Yobie Benjamin described the dramatic impact that this new order is going to have on media coverage of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill crisis....

In the video posted below, you can really feel Anderson Cooper's outrage as he described what this new order means.  Is this another huge indication that free speech in America is just about dead?....

The truth is that this is the biggest environmental crisis in U.S. history and every day that oil continues to gush into the Gulf the immeasurable damage that is being caused gets even worse.  Don't the folks in Washington D.C. care about the environment?  Why aren't they doing anything and everything they can to solve this problem as rapidly as possible?

As noted above, the video of black rain posted below is absolutely stunning.  Just imagine how you would feel if it was raining oil where you live....

But BP seems much more interested in rescuing their corporate image than in rescuing those sea creatures.  The following are 10 ways that BP is behaving very badly right now....

#1) Over the last several weeks, journalists and reporters attempting to cover the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have been yelled at, harassed, kicked off public beaches and threatened with arrest by representatives of BP.

#2) The chemical dispersants that BP is using in the Gulf are much more toxic than even the oil is.  In fact, because it is so incredibly toxic, the UK's Marine Management Organization has completely banned Corexit 9500, so if there was a major oil spill in the North Sea, BP would not be able to use it.  But BP sees no problem with dumping over a million gallons of highly toxic dispersants such as Corexit 9500 into the Gulf of Mexico.

#3) The Louisiana Environmental Action Network is reporting that British Petroleum is threatening to fire fishermen hired to help with the oil spill cleanup for using respirators and other safety equipment that was not provided by the company.

#4) BP's treatment of American citizens along the Gulf coast is becoming so brutal that one prominent health expert recently told the media that BP is "running the Gulf region like a prison warden".

#5) BP has now hired private security contractors from a company called "Talon Security" to keep the American people away from the oil cleanup sites.

#6) It is even being alleged that BP has actually tried to manipulate the search results on sites like Google and Yahoo in an attempt to control what we see and hear about the oil spill.

#7) The judge that BP is pushing for to preside over an estimated 200 lawsuits on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster gets tens of thousands of dollars a year in oil royalties and is paid travel expenses to oil industry conferences.

#8) BP is finally admitting that oil is escaping from the leak at such high pressure that if they try to cap it the entire well may blow.  Why didn't they admit that from the very beginning?

#9) BP has had a dismissive tone towards the public from the very beginning.  Carl-Henric Svanberg, the BP chairman, has finally apologized for referring to those affected by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as "small people".

#10) Eight days ago, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. But today, against the governor's wishes, the Coast Guard has ordered those barges to sit idle, even as more oil flows toward the Louisiana shore.  All along the Gulf Coast anyone who tries to clean up oil without being under BP's supervision is being shut down and turned away.

The following are 10 shocking facts about the unprecedented environmental horror in the Gulf of Mexico that you may not know....   

#1) Prominent oceanographers are accusing the Obama administration of failing to conduct an adequate scientific analysis of the damage from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and of allowing BP to purposely deceive the public about the spill's true scope.

#2) A large number of fishermen are becoming seriously ill - and many of them believe that the chemicals that BP is using in the Gulf are to blame.

#3) Oil from the spill has already managed to seep past blockades into areas with vulnerable wildlife, such as the Pass-a-Loutre Wildlife Management Area at the mouth of the Mississippi river.

#4) Scientists now say that the first oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill has entered an ocean current that could take it over to Florida and up the east coast of the United States.

#5) One oil industry expert says that oil could pour into the Gulf of Mexico for up to 9000 days if the leak is not plugged.

#6) Local shrimpers in Louisiana are already predicting that it will be seven years before they can set to sea again.

#7) Louisiana's governor recently made this dramatic statement about the oil spill in the Gulf: "The day that we’ve been fearing is upon us."

#8) There are unconfirmed reports that black rain is now falling in southwest Florida.

#9) Despite the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. government is under pressure to issue new permits for offshore drilling as early as next week.

#10) Not only that, but gambling websites are now placing odds on what species will be first to become extinct as a result of the oil belching from BP's ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico.

To get an idea of just how horrific the damage is going to be from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, just check out the following quotes....

Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife:

"It is so big and expanding so fast that it's pretty much beyond human response that can be effective. ... You're looking at a long-term poisoning of the area. Ultimately, this will have a multidecade impact."

Florida Governor Charlie Crist:

"Florida is currently preparing for what we all know is an environmental disaster of unprecedented proportions for our state and Gulf of Mexico partner states."

Public Service Commissioner Benjamin Stevens:

"You get hit by a hurricane and you can rebuild. But when that stuff washes up on the white sands of Pensacola Beach, you can't just go and get more white sand.''

Hotel Owner Dodie Vegas:

"It's just going to kill us. It's going to destroy us."

Louis Miller of the Mississippi Sierra Club:

"This is going to destroy the Mississippi and the Gulf Coast as we know it."

Are you starting to get the picture?

This is going to be a complete and total environmental nightmare.

Something has got to be done to save the environment along the Gulf coast for future generations.

The following video should be sobering for all of us.  It shows the dead fish that are already starting to come ashore on Louisiana beaches as a result of this terrible oil spill.  Please send this video out to everyone that you know.  We must wake people up while there is still time....

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is rapidly becoming the worst environmental disaster in American history.  We are watching as an entire region is economically and environmentally destroyed in slow motion.  In fact, many are calling this Gulf of Mexico oil spill a "slow motion Katrina", but the truth is that if something is not done quickly this disaster will end up being far worse than Hurricane Katrina.  Once the oil slick gets into the wetlands along the Gulf Coast it is going to create a nightmare of unimaginable proportions.

So far, the efforts by BP to clean up this oil spill have been less than satisfactory.  In fact, there are serious environmental concerns about the dispersal agent that BP is using to try to fight the oil spill.  If BP is not careful, the solution to the problem could end up being worse for the environment than the oil spill is.

So is there a way that we can save the environment in the Gulf of Mexico that is very safe and completely organic?

Well, yes there is, and it is also incredibly inexpensive.

It is called hay.

Yes, we are being totally serious.

The video below will absolutely amaze you.

The video contains footage of CW Roberts employees demonstrating the use of hay to remove oil from water.  This same method can be used to clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  You have got to check this out....

So will those in charge of cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico embrace this idea?

No, probably not.

But perhaps some of those who live along the Gulf Coast will take matters into their own hands and will use this idea to help save the environment along the coast where they live.

Every little bit helps.  Please send this video out to everyone that you know - especially those who live along the Gulf Coast.  This is one of the great environmental nightmares of our time, and it is urgent that we all do what we can to help.

It seems like today there are more people than ever who say that they want to save the environment, and yet environmental degradation around the globe continues to get worse and worse.  The truth is that while there is a lot of lip service about "going green" and "doing something" for the environment, the reality is that when the rubber meets the road authorities around the world really do not seem too concerned that the world's environment is being recklessly destroyed.  Our air, water and soil are all under constant assault, and if that wasn't bad enough, now scientists seem intent on genetically modifying anything and everything that they can get their hands on.  The result is a colossal environmental mess that seems beyond the capacity of humanity to fix.  But instead of addressing the real environmental issues, most of those involved in the false environmental movement are running around crying about things that aren't even real problems.  

We all need to wake up in a big hurry.  We are literally destroying the world.  The following are ten recent examples that demonstrate how humanity is recklessly destroying the environment and yet very few people seem to care....

#1) A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives raises the possibility that a flame retardant chemical found in an alarming number of common household consumer products can cause infertility.

#2) Even in China, scientists are warning that genetically modified rice may potentially cause very serious public health and environmental problems.

#3) It turns out that genetically modified crops have been showing up everywhere - even in places where they have been banned.

#4) British scientists are now warning that due to reckless and unsustainable farming methods, farming soil in the U.K. could be entirely depleted within the next 60 years.

#5) A team of scientists down in Melbourne, Australia is developing a procedure for transplanting genetically modified pig organs into humans.

#6) World health authorities continue to insist that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine is perfectly safe, but reports of severe side effects from the vaccine continue to pour in.

#7) Compact fluorescent light bulbs have been touted as a way to "go green", but the truth is that they are filled with toxic mercury that, when disposed of, seriously contaminates landfills and the environment.

#8) Two major U.S. paper companies are planning to transform the plantation forests of the southeastern United States by replacing native pine trees with genetically engineered eucalyptus.

#9) Some residents of Puerto Rico have recently filed a lawsuit against the United States, claiming that the testing of depleted uranium weapons and agent orange for decades in that nation has made them very sick.

#10) Lastly, one stunning new study has found significant levels of pharmaceutical drugs and illegal drugs in our water supplies despite "rigorous" efforts to remove them at water treatment facilities.

During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.  This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt.  According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve "family planning" services around the globe over the next six years.  In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.

The following is an excerpt from Clinton's remarks....

In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health.

You see, whenever the global elite want to launch another new eugenics operation, they announce it as a great "humanitarian program" that will save millions of lives.  But their real goal is to control the population and prevent millions of lives from being born.

This was also reflected in Clinton's remarks about the United Nations Population Fund.  The United Nations Population Fund has been promoting abortion, forced sterilization and radical population control measures around the globe for decades, and Hillary Clinton was super excited to talk about how the U.S. government recently renewed funding for that organization....

This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. (Applause.) The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. (Applause.)

So what exactly is so bad about the United Nations Population Fund?

Not only does the United Nations Population Fund support and fund the forced abortion and infanticide of China's "one child" program, they also promote abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

To learn much more about the United Nations Population Fund, please watch the four short videos below.  They will leave you absolutely stunned....

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLkw01UaUes&feature=related

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISj1d9lNi-E&feature=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V8oWHAh_yo&feature=related

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myITaeV3Q2o&feature=related

The truth is that the United Nations Population Fund always has been and always will be about eugenics.

And thanks to Barack Obama, it is being funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

But that wasn't enough for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so they have launched this new Global Health Initiative which will now be the "centerpiece" of U.S. foreign policy.

63 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars will be spent over the next six years to promote abortion, sterilization and "family planning" around the globe. 

Sadly enough, there are people who are actually convinced that they will save the environment by reducing the population.  They think that while promoting abortion and sterilization may not be the most pleasant thing to do, it must be done for the good of the planet.

Of course they are dead wrong, but the "true believers" do not understand this.  All they know is that they have to keep all of the brown and black women in other countries from having babies so that we can save the planet.

We live in a world that is becoming more evil all the time.  Every person on this planet has a fundamental right to have as many children as they want, but the truth is that this right is being stripped away from an increasing number of people. 

We live at a time when even our most fundamental liberties as human beings are under attack.  Let us hope that America wakes up and starts saying "no" to these kinds of policies.

If Al Gore and his radical environmentalist buddies could make a Hollywood movie it would assuredly be something very much like Avatar. It has been a long time since there has been a movie with such an obvious agenda. You see, the truth is that Avatar is nothing more than a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the environmental movement. James Cameron is not even trying to hide it, and in fact he openly admits it.

So what is wrong with that?

Why not use a film to influence society?

Well, the truth is that we go to the movies to be entertained - not to have a radical environmental agenda crammed down our throat.

And that is exactly what Avatar seeks to do.

The following are ten reasons why Avatar is simply a thinly veiled propaganda piece for the environmental movement....

#1) The humans have come to the planet that the Na'vi live on (Pandora) to mine a mineral that is so rare that it is called "Unobtainium".

#2) The blue-skinned Na'vi are so "one with nature" that they actually live in trees.

#3) The Na'vi worship "Mother Earth" just like many modern radical environmentalists do.

#4) The Na'vi embrace philosophies that are very similar to what is found in eastern religions and the New Age movement.  They apparently believe in reincarnation and that "all energy is borrowed and some day you have to give it back".

#5) The blue-skinned Na’vi are so "green" that they actually reject all technology that is more advanced than a bow and arrow.

#6) The human sent to "negotiate" with the Na'vi in the film, Sully, actually switches sides and laments that fact that humanity has already wrecked their own planet and now they want to wreck the habitat of the Na'vi.

#7) In fact, humans in Avatar are portrayed as an evil race that has "killed their mother".

#8) Avatar is so extreme that it is perhaps the first big Hollywood movie where we are all actually meant to root for aliens and against mankind.

#9) In fact, Sully ends up so disgusted with the human race that he ends up rejecting not just the humans that he is working for, but his own humanity as well.

#10) James Cameron even admits that Avatar is a blatant propaganda piece.  In an interview for the film, Cameron said that Avatar is about "our impact on the natural environment, wherever we go strip mining and putting up shopping malls".  

So is Avatar worth seeing in the theaters?

Only if you like being preached at and indoctrinated.

Otherwise just hold on to your money or go spend it on some cheap plastic stuff made in China.

Not that Europe has it any better.  The death toll from winter storms across Europe has risen to at least 80, as arctic temperatures and heavy snow continue to plague the continent.  In Poland, it is estimated that 42 people froze to death during a recent three day period when temperatures plunged to under minus 20 degrees Celsius.

So is this global warming? 

We could actually use some global warming about now.

The truth is that the earth is actually in a cooling period right now.

In fact, new measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that directly correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle.

It is the sun that drives global warming and cooling.

But you will never convince the environmental extremists of that.

However, if you want to know what the evidence really says about global warming, please read the recent article that we did entitled "How To Save The Environment? Get Al Gore The Heck Away From It".

The reality is that humanity is not causing global warming.

In fact, the world will probably get quite a bit more snow this winter during this cooling period.

So, enjoy the snow as the environmentalists try to figure out a way to blame it all on "global warming".

This is what happened when McAleer tried to ask Al Gore a question about the Climategate emails....

Now check out what happened to McAleer when he tried to ask one of the world's top climate scientists about Climategate a couple days earlier....

In fact, the United Nations Population Fund recently released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate".  This stunning report directly links the growth of the human population with climate change.  In fact, the report makes it clear that unless something is done to reduce the growth of the human population on the earth then the battle against climate change cannot be won.

Of course most of you who are reading this know that is a bunch of rubbish, but the environmental extremists actually believe this stuff.

They believe that humanity is the enemy and that we need to get rid of a whole bunch of us. 

UNEP, the sponsor of the posters below, is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC is the organization at the center of the recent "Climategate" scandal. 

If you are not aware of "Climategate", essentially what happened is that emails from some of the top climate scientists in the world were leaked which show that they were invovled in manipulating data and suppressing information in order to benefit their theory that man is causing global warming.

You see, if humanity is not causing climate change, then it is much harder to cast all of us as the enemy.

Just check out the stunning posters below.  This first poster is a twist on the movie "Jaws" as it portrays the sharks as the ones who should be afraid....

This second poster from the U.N. is a twist on the movie King Kong.  It portrays humans as the ones that apes should be fearful of....

This last one is a twist on classic movies about giant spiders.  Instead of us being afraid of spiders, this poster declares that the spiders should be afraid of us.....

Do you see what the message is?

The message is that humanity is the enemy of the environment.

We are the ones being viewed as the threat.

The implication is that we are a threat that needs to be neutralized.

When international organizations start thinking like that, it is time for all kinds of red flags to start going up.

In his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, Al Gore stresses the "spiritual side" of preventing climate change and make this stunning admission: "Simply laying out the facts won't work."

Now why in the world would Al Gore say something like that?

Could it be that he is starting to realize that the facts are not on his side?

In fact, it is being reported that Al Gore is now saying that carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of "global warming".

But that isn't stopping the "eco-prophet" from continuing his reckless crusade against carbon dioxide.  Gore continues to tirelessly advocate a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme which could allow him to reap billions of dollars in profits if it is ultimately implemented.

Apparently what is good for the environment is very good for Al Gore's wallet too.

But that is not what this article is about.

What this article is about is showing how Al Gore's environmental policies would be an absolute disaster for the environment.

Firstly, let us examine the absolutely ridiculous claims that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming.  The reality is that any global warming that was going on was caused by the sun. 

You see, a few years ago when the sun was experiencing record sunspot activity, our entire solar system experienced a period of "global warming".  It was not just the earth.  Every single planet circling the sun experienced a warming period. 

Now that our sun has entered into a period of very low sunspot activity, our planet and the rest of our solar system is experiencing a period of "global cooling".

And yet carbon dioxide levels on earth continue to increase.  If the rising carbon dioxide levels were causing global warming then the earth should still be warming.

But it isn't.

The truth, as you will clearly see in the outstanding video below, is that rising carbon dioxide levels follow a rise in earth temperatures.  Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.  It never has and it never will.  Instead, scientists have now been able to show that when there is higher sunspot activity temperatures on earth rise, and when there is low sunspot activity temperatures on earth fall.  The following video absolutely tears apart Al Gore's theories from "An Inconvenient Truth" and it shows what the primary cause of climate change actually is.....

But does it matter if Al Gore's theories are nonsense?

Perhaps his ideas will not save the environment - does that mean that Al Gore is harming the environment?

Unfortunately the answer to that question is yes.

Al Gore, in his reckless crusade to help the environment, is determined to reduce levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by as much as possible.

But there is a problem.

Plants need carbon dioxide to live.  It is one of the key building blocks of life on earth.

In fact, natural sources produce far, far, far more carbon dioxide than humans do.  Wikipedia puts it this way.....

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO₂ emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth.

Have you got that?

Over 95 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions would still occur even if you took the entire human race off the earth.

So even if carbon dioxide was causing global warming (which it certainly does not), the truth is that if all human carbon dioxide emissions went to zero, over 95 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions would still be occurring.

So to reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent or more, Al Gore and his fellow global warming cultists will NOT be able to do that by reducing carbon dioxide emissions caused by man.

Instead they will have to attack all life on earth.

In other words, Al Gore and his followers would have to brutally attack the earth's environment in order to get the kind of carbon emissions that they are after.

In fact, any reductions in carbon dioxide will seriously affect life.  Less carbon dioxide emissions would mean less carbon dioxide for plant life.  That means that crops would suffer.  Less crops and less plant life would mean that there would be less food for men and animals.  In a world that is already teetering on the verge of a major food crisis, any drop in the world food supply would be an absolute disaster.

The truth is that Al Gore absolutely does NOT know what he is talking about when it comes to the environment.  He is simply a con man and a greedy investor who is looking forward to making a lot of money.

But if Al Gore's vision of a world with dramatically reduced levels of carbon dioxide comes to pass, the reality is that life on earth will greatly suffer.  Starvation would be rampant.  In fact, if carbon dioxide levels were reduced far enough, it just might be your own family that starves.

For those who do truly care about saving the environment, there is one thing that you need to know what it comes to Al Gore.....

Al Gore must be stopped.  For the sake of life on earth, Al Gore must be stopped.

The truth is that we are literally destroying the Pacific Ocean and the environmental horror that we have created is getting worse every single hour of every single day.

How could we have done this?

What excuse will we give to future generations for not being able to stop doing this?

Perhaps one day historians will look back on this time and will refer to us as "those crazy Plastic People".

We take things like plastic and polyester completely for granted today.

We take it for granted that we can constantly throw things out and that they won't be a problem for anyone.

But just look at what we have done.

This massive "garbage vortex" that we have created occupies a large and relatively stationary region in the north Pacific Ocean and it is brimming with millions upon millions of tons of our garbage, most of it plastic.

It is quite literally the largest landfill in the world, and it floats in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Experts estimate that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch contains well over 100 million tons of trash.

And it never goes away.

You see, one of the truly frightening things about all of this is that plastic does not biodegrade. That means that it just sits there and all of the new garbage that comes along daily just adds to the problem.

Just think about that the next time you throw out a plastic soda bottle.  That bottle was created so that you could guzzle down a soda and then throw the bottle away.  But that bottle could very easily end up polluting the ocean for the next million years.

Thankfully there are some people who are trying to take action.  Consider what one organization is saying about this environmental nightmare.....

-----

http://www.greatgarbagepatch.org/

Much of our waste today is comprised of plastic that does not biodegrade. This waste accumulates in swirling seas of debris, where plastic to sea life ratios are 6:1; where birds and mammals are dying of starvation and dehydration with bellies full of plastics; and fish are ingesting toxins at such a rate that soon they will no longer be safe to eat.

-----

How in the world could we be so foolish as to turn our beautiful Pacific Ocean into a soup of plastic, trash and human waste?

Just look at what we have done.

Now we have an area about twice the size of the continental United States that we will NEVER be able to clean up, and the problem is getting worse by the hour.

Is there any possible excuse for the mess that we have made?

What could we possibly tell our children and grandchildren?

Sometimes it takes a video for some people to really understand what is going on.  The following YouTube video should be a wake up call for all of us.....

The truth is that we like to think that we are so "advanced", but we keep on destroying the earth at an increasingly rapid pace. Our foolishness is not only destroying ourselves, but it is destroying species all over the planet at an alarming rate.....

While many of the "environmentalists" in the world run around crying about "global warming", the real environmental crises are being almost totally ignored.

The Living Planet Index released last year shows that the planet has lost almost one third of all living species in the last 35 years.

Just think about that statistic for a moment.

One third of all living species????

What have we done?

The Living Planet Index revealed that land species have declined by 25 per cent, marine species by 28 per cent, and freshwater species by 29 per cent in just 35 short years.

Jonathan Loh, the editor of the report, says that such an extreme decline was "completely unprecedented in terms of human history".

Are you alarmed yet?

The truth is that humanity's greed is literally destroying everything around us.

All of this brings to mind the following scripture from the book of Revelation:

"The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

-Revelation 11:18

That is what we are doing - we are destroying the earth.  We are all contributing to it.  We all need to join together to start finding some solutions.

To learn more about the environmental horror in the Pacific Ocean called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, check out this excellent YouTube video.....

Covering a very impressive 64 square miles, the city of Destiny plans to implement the latest in environmental technology in order to create America's cleanest and most environmentally sustainable community.

The following are just a few of the ammenities that this new community will feature....

• Hundreds Of Miles Of Walking And Riding Trails (Wow!)
• Over 200 Miles Of Navigable Waterways
• A Clean Tech Zone & A Green Job Hub
• A 400 Acre Clean Energy Research Park
• The City Is Located Just 4 Hours From Over 15 Million Consumers
• A Next Generation, Environmentally Friendly Airport
• A "Multi-Modal" Clean Energy Transportation System
• A Promise That Less Than 60 Percent Of The City's Land Will Be Developed

Randy Johnson, the COO of the city, has made the following statement about the plans for Destiny:

"The vision of the Destiny team is to develop a truly sustainable community, which guarantees the preservation and protection of the region's land and its natural habitats, while also providing unique employment opportunities."

The plans call for Destiny to literally be surrounded by waterways, lakes, open spaces and agricultural buffers in order to completely prevent the possibility of "urban sprawl". There are also plans to build some homes "in every price range" in order to "encourage diversity".

But is that really practical?  After all, when one family realizes that they paid twice as much for their house as their neighbors did, what will they think about that?

In any event, you have to give them credit for trying.

Developer Anthony V. Pugliese, III and Fred DeLuca, the cofounder of Subway restaurants, worked together to buy the land for the city of Destiny in 2005. Their unique vision for an environmentally friendly community is literally making headlines all over the world.

So will this work? Are eco-sustainable cities a realistic proposition in an economy and a real estate market that are coming apart at the seams? Can an environmental "utopia" really be achieved in this day and age?

Perhaps not, but at least they are giving it their best shot.  They are doing their best to make a difference for the environment.  What are YOU doing to improve things?