|
Breathing Polluted Air Is Like Smoking a Pack a Day |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50960"><span class="small">Jordan Davidson, EcoWatch</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:44 |
|
Davidson writes: "It turns out you don't need to smoke for a lifetime to get emphysema. Just breathing polluted air can give it to you, according to a new study that is the largest and the longest of its kind."
Visitors to Griffith Park observe a smoggy Los Angeles on Oct. 24, 2014. (photo: Mark Boster/LA Times)

Breathing Polluted Air Is Like Smoking a Pack a Day
By Jordan Davidson, EcoWatch
15 August 19
t turns out you don't need to smoke for a lifetime to get emphysema. Just breathing polluted air can give it to you, according to a new study that is the largest and the longest of its kind.
The study, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, found that long-term exposure to ground level ozone, the main component of smog, is like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, as CNN reported. Just a slightly elevated level of air pollution can lead to lung damage, even for people who have never smoked.
"We found that an increase of about three parts per billion [of ground-level ozone] outside your home was equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 29 years," said Joel Kaufman, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Washington who contributed to the study, as NPR reported.
The study tracked 7,071 adults aged 45 to 84 living in six U.S. cities: Chicago; Los Angeles; Baltimore; St. Paul, Minnesota; New York City and Winston-Salem, North Carolina for up to 18 years.
The researchers created an exposure assessment method that looked at air pollution levels outside participants' homes and carried out CT scans and breathing tests, according to U.S. News and World Report. They assessed environments for levels of fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, black carbon and ozone.
All major air pollutants were linked to an increase of emphysema, a debilitating, chronic and irreversible lung disease that causes shortness of breath and shrinks the amount of oxygen that reaches the bloodstream. It's almost always associated with smoking or long-term exposure to second hand smoke.
However, exposure to ground level ozone pollution showed the strongest link to an increased prevalence of emphysema. It was also the only pollutant to show an additional decrease in lung function, as CNN reported.
"Rates of chronic lung disease in this country are going up and increasingly it is recognized that this disease occurs in nonsmokers," said Kaufman, as U.S. News and World Report reported. "We really need to understand what's causing chronic lung disease, and it appears that air pollution exposures that are common and hard to avoid might be a major contributor."
This is particularly troubling since the climate crisis is accelerating ground level ozone. While most air pollutants have declined thanks in large part to the Clean Air Act, ground level ozone has actually increased. Ozone is colorless and forms when pollutants from fossil fuels interact with sunlight. Pollution from cars, power plants, refineries and chemical plants all contribute to smog, and it is on track to get worse, as U.S. News and World Report reported.
"These findings matter since ground-level ozone levels are rising, and the amount of emphysema on CT scans predicts hospitalization from and deaths due to chronic lower respiratory disease," said Dr. R. Graham Barr, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and a senior author of the paper, to CNN.
He added that smog "is accelerated by heatwaves, so ground-level ozone will likely continue to increase unless additional steps are taken to reduce fossil fuel emissions and curb climate change. But it's not clear what level of ozone, if any, is safe for human health."
"And so as climate change progresses, we expect that vulnerable populations and — even healthy populations — are going to see increased effects," said Emily Brigham, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University who was not involved in this study, to NPR.

|
|
FOCUS: The Media |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51193"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Bernie 2020</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 15 August 2019 10:53 |
|
Sanders writes: "In our campaign we are taking on Wall Street, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel companies, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex and the 1 percent."
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)

The Media
By Bernie Sanders, Bernie 2020
15 August 19
et's discuss an issue that gets far too little attention — for obvious reasons.
In our campaign we are taking on Wall Street, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel companies, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex and the 1 percent. In other words, we are taking on the corporate elite and the billionaire class who exercise enormous power over the economic and political life of the country.
It is no shock to me that the big networks and news organizations, which are owned and controlled by a handful of large corporations, either barely discuss our campaign or write us off when they do.
When we trail in a poll, it gets endless coverage.
When a poll is great for us, it barely gets a mention.
When someone out-raises us in fundraising, it’s non-stop news.
When we have the most donations by far, of any other candidate, here comes the coverage about who has the most “crossover donors,” whatever that means.
We’ve said from the start that we will have to take on virtually the entire media establishment in this campaign, and so far that has proven to be true.
Ok. Fine. We are ready.
But even more important than much of the corporate media’s dislike of our campaign is the fact that much of the coverage in this country portrays politics as entertainment, and largely ignores the major crises facing our communities.
In fact, what I have learned from experience is that, as a general rule of thumb, the more important the issue is to large numbers of working people, the less interesting it is to the corporate media.
Sadly, for the corporate media, the real issues facing the American people — poverty, the decline of the middle class, income and wealth inequality, trade, health care, climate change, education etc. — are fairly irrelevant.
And sadly, when they do cover issues like Medicare for All, it is almost always about the polling or if the issue makes someone more or less electable. Very rarely is there discussion about why we spend twice as much per capita as other industrialized nations for worse outcomes while the health care industry made $100 billion in profits last year.
Or if the conversation does happen with any depth, it is almost always framed in conservative terms and talking points — or the ostensibly Democratic viewpoint shared by moderates from the party.
The discussion is very rarely about what it will do for people’s lives or why 30,000 people a year die in America because they can’t afford to go to a doctor when they should.
And what we have to ask ourselves is why.
Why is it that the corporate media sees politics as entertainment and largely ignores the major crises facing our country and how candidates are addressing those crises?
And the answer lies, in fact, with something that is very rarely discussed, and certainly not in the media: and that is that the corporate media is owned by a small number of large media conglomerates.
In 1983 the largest fifty corporations controlled 90 percent of the media. That’s a high level of concentration.
Today, as a result of massive mergers and takeovers, only a few large corporations like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Fox, Disney, Viacom, and CBS control the vast majority of what we see, hear, and read. And there is news that Viacom and CBS want to merge next.
This is outrageous, and a real threat to our democracy.
Because in case you haven’t heard, these corporations have an agenda that serves their bottom line.
Take, for example, Disney:
Disney, the owner of ABC, makes its products in Chinese factories where workers are paid only a few dollars per day under "nightmare conditions." And in the United States, they have utilized guest worker programs to fire Americans and replace them with lower wage foreign workers.
Further, despite making huge profits, many of the people at their parks make low wages.
I was proud to have worked with employees at Disneyland to raise their minimum wage to $15 an hour, but more has got to be done.
Now I could be wrong, but I don’t expect that you will see programming tonight on ABC discussing the plight of low-wage workers here in the United States or, for that matter, in China.
But if you do watch TV tonight, check out how many ads come from drug companies, insurance companies, the fossil fuel industry, Wall Street, and the rest of corporate America. They even ran ads targeting Medicare for All during the CNN presidential debate.
These powerful corporations also have an agenda, and you can be sure it isn’t our agenda.
Now, Donald Trump thinks that media in America is the “Enemy of the people.”
To me, that is an outrageous remark from a president which has the purpose of undermining American democracy.
Because the truth is, a knowledgeable and informed electorate is essential to a working democracy, and the work of journalists in this country and abroad is absolutely critical to our communities and to maintaining a free society.
So it is my sincere hope that the coverage of this campaign generally, and our campaign specifically, changes in the weeks and months ahead.
It is my sincere hope that we can spend more time talking in-depth about the issues facing the working people of this country and less time covering the latest scandal or political gossip.
It is my sincere hope that we have a more serious discussion about the real pain working people, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are facing.
These are not people with well-paid lobbyists who know how to manipulate the system. These are people who struggle every single day but are almost always ignored by the government.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
-------
The Sanders Campaign campaign has a survey on this issue.

|
|
|
"Kochland" Examines the Koch Brothers' Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial |
|
|
Thursday, 15 August 2019 08:34 |
|
Mayer writes: "If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of 'Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,' by the business reporter Christopher Leonard."
A new book reveals that Charles Koch, along with his brother David, played an earlier and more central role in climate-change denial than was previously understood. (photo: David Zalubowski/AP)

"Kochland" Examines the Koch Brothers' Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial
By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker
15 August 19
f there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
Leonard, who has written for Bloomberg Businessweek and the Wall Street Journal, devotes most of the book to an even-handed telling of how the two brothers from Wichita, Kansas, built up Koch Industries, a privately owned business so profitable that together they have amassed some hundred and twenty billion dollars, a fortune larger than that of Amazon’s C.E.O., Jeff Bezos, or the Microsoft founder Bill Gates. The project took Leonard more than six years to finish and it draws on hundreds of hours of interviews, including with Charles Koch, the C.E.O. and force without equal atop the sprawling corporate enterprise. (David Koch retired from the firm last year.)
While “Kochland” is more focussed on business than on politics, in line with Leonard’s “The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America’s Food Business,” from 2014, it nonetheless adds new details about the ways in which the brothers have leveraged their fortune to capture American politics. Leonard shows that the Kochs’ political motives are both ideological, as hardcore free-market libertarians, and self-interested, serving their fossil-fuel-enriched bottom line. The Kochs’ secret sauce, as Leonard describes it, has been a penchant for long-term planning, patience, and flexibility; a relentless pursuit of profit; and the control that comes from owning some eighty per cent of their business empire themselves, without interference from stockholders or virtually anyone else.
Saying anything new about the Kochs isn’t easy. The two brothers have been extensively covered: they are the subject of Daniel Schulman’s excellent biography “Sons of Wichita,” from 2014, and the focus of much in-depth investigative reporting, including a piece I wrote for The New Yorker, from 2010, and my book “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right,” from 2016.
Leonard, nonetheless, manages to dig up valuable new material, including evidence of the Kochs’ role in perhaps the earliest known organized conference of climate-change deniers, which gathered just as the scientific consensus on the issue was beginning to gel. The meeting, in 1991, was sponsored by the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank, which the Kochs founded and heavily funded for years. As Leonard describes it, Charles Koch and other fossil-fuel magnates sprang into action that year, after President George H. W. Bush announced that he would support a treaty limiting carbon emissions, a move that posed a potentially devastating threat to the profits of Koch Industries. At the time, Bush was not an outlier in the Republican Party. Like the Democrats, the Republicans largely accepted the scientific consensus on climate change, reflected in the findings of expert groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which had formed in 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Kochs’ key role in stopping congressional action on climate change is well-known, but longtime environmental activists, such as Kert Davies, the director of the Climate Investigation Center, credit Leonard with discovering that the Kochs played an earlier and even more central role in climate-change denial than was previously understood. In 2010, Davies authored a report, for Greenpeace, that labelled the Kochs “The Kingpins of Denial,” but he told me that he hadn’t realized that their role went as far back as 1991. (A copy of a flyer for the Cato conference can be seen at Koch Docs, a new digital collaborative-research project, directed by the liberal corporate watchdog Lisa Graves, which tracks the Kochs’ influence.)
According to “Kochland,” the 1991 conference was called “Global Environmental Crisis: Science or Politics?” It featured many of the same characters who have spread doubt about the reality of climate change and continue to challenge the advisability of acting against it. Among the speakers was Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at M.I.T., who is quoted in the brochure as saying there was “very little evidence at all” that climate change would be “catastrophic.”
“Kochland” is important, Davies said, because it makes it clear that “you’d have a carbon tax, or something better, today, if not for the Kochs. They stopped anything from happening back when there was still time.” The book also documents how, in 2010, the company’s lobbyists spent gobs of cash and swarmed Congress as part of a multi-pronged effort to kill the first, and so far the last, serious effort to place a price on carbon pollution—the proposed “cap and trade” bill. Magnifying the Kochs’ power was their network of allied donors, anonymously funded shell groups, think tanks, academic centers, and nonprofit advocacy groups, which Koch insiders referred to as their “echo chamber.” Leonard also reports that the centrist think tank Third Way quietly worked with the Kochs to push back against efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, which could have affected their business importing oil from Canada. Frequently, and by design, the Koch brothers’ involvement was all but invisible.
Others have chronicled the cap-and-trade fight well, but Leonard penetrates the inner sanctum of the Kochs’ lobbying machine, showing that, from the start, even when other parts of the company could have benefitted from an embrace of alternative energy, Koch Industries regarded any compromise that might reduce fossil-fuel consumption as unacceptable. Protecting its fossil-fuel profits was, and remains, the company’s top political priority. Leonard shows that the Kochs, to achieve this end, worked to hijack the Tea Party movement and, eventually, the Republican Party itself.
Scientists who worked for Koch Industries adopted the company line; Leonard quotes a former company scientist, who embraced the conspiracy theory that élites invented a global-warming “hoax” as a way to unite Americans against a common enemy after the Cold War. Leonard also quotes Philip Ellender, Koch Industries’ top lobbyist, as claiming, in 2014, that the Earth had gotten cooler in the previous eighteen years. In fact, according to NASA, eighteen of the nineteen hottest years on record have occurred in the past two decades. Yet the Koch machine bought its way into Congress and turned climate-change denial into an unchallengeable Republican talking point. Meanwhile, after the cap-and-trade bill died, the planet continued heating, and the Kochs’ net worth doubled.
Because the Kochs opposed the candidacy of Donald Trump, in 2016, many have assumed that they are antagonistic to the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Leonard writes, with the help of allies such as Vice-President Mike Pence, “the politics that the Kochs stoked in 2010 became the policies that Trump enacted in 2017.” Whether announcing his intention to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, placing shills from the oil and coal industries at the head of federal energy and environmental departments, or slashing taxes on corporations and the ultra-wealthy, Trump has delivered for the Kochs. “Kochland” quotes Charles Koch telling his allied political donors, in 2018, “We’ve made more progress in the last five years than I had in the previous fifty.”
Leonard’s grasp of political details isn’t always completely firm. He describes the late Senator Arlen Specter, a moderate from Pennsylvania, as being a “conservative” Republican prior to his switch to the Democratic Party. And Leonard misconstrues the origin of the term “Kochtopus,” which was coined not recently by political critics but decades ago by rival libertarians who derided the Kochs for putting self-interest above principle. But “Kochland” is deeply and authoritatively reported, and, while it can be overly cautious in the conclusions that it draws, it marshals a huge amount of information and uses it to help solve two enduring mysteries: how the Kochs got so rich, and how they used that fortune to buy off American action on climate change.

|
|
Forest Animal Populations Have Plummeted by Half Since 1970, Report Warns |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47036"><span class="small">World Wildlife Fund</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 15 August 2019 08:34 |
|
Excerpt: "It's nothing short of a planetary emergency."
Forests are home to more than half of land-based species. (photo: Emmanuel Rondeau/WWF)

Forest Animal Populations Have Plummeted by Half Since 1970, Report Warns
By World Wildlife Fund
15 August 19
New WWF report details multiple threats to forest-dwelling species
t’s nothing short of a planetary emergency. The first-ever global assessment of forest biodiversity shows forest-dwelling wildlife populations have declined on average by 53% in the last five decades. The greatest of these losses occurred in tropical forests, such as the Amazon, where the highest number of forest species live.
The impact of this staggering loss goes beyond wildlife. The health of forest species is intrinsically linked to the health of forests overall--and the health of people and the planet.
Forests are home to more than half of land-based species—all who provide essential functions, such as pollinating and dispersing seeds, to keep forests healthy.
When forests are healthy, they help purify our air and water, prevent floods, provide people with food and jobs, and so much more. They also store and absorb carbon. Vitally, these carbon sinks help shield the planet against the effects of climate change.
If we are to reverse the decline in biodiversity worldwide and avoid a climate crisis, we need to safeguard forests and the species that live in them.
To do so it is necessary to understand the many threats to forests and the species that live within them. Deforestation, illegal wildlife trade, unsustainable hunting, invasive species, climate change, and disease all put them at risk, according to WWF’s Below the Canopy report. Habitat loss and forest degradation alone--primarily caused by human activity--are the cause of 60% of the threats to forests and forest species.
WWF’s report also shares hopeful conservation success stories, including those related to monkeys in Costa Rica and gorillas in central and east Africa, noting that with the right solutions, forest-dwelling species can recover and thrive again.
Everyone can help protect and restore forests, but there is no time to waste. Global leaders must take action now to stop climate breakdown, safeguard our planet’s remaining natural spaces, and make our consumption and production model more sustainable. Consumers can make more informed choices like choosing forest-based products, from paper products to furniture, with the FSC label.

|
|