The media is desperate to push Biden out so they can get more money. The papers that Stephanopoulos quoted are owned and run by well known tRump conservatives like Rupert Murdock. Stephanopoulos kept hammering Biden was too old, was not fit, was kidding himself how fit he was, stuff like that no matter what Biden answered. After Biden would list his accomplishments Stephanopoulos said yes but aren’t you frail, then when they talked about the future Stephanopoulos asked if Biden had it to finish the next few years, which Biden talked of what he did recently Stephanopoulos asked yes but what did it cost you physically and mentally. He just was desperate to break Biden, and Biden was getting sick of him hammering on the same thing and not acknowledging anything Biden said. I thought Biden did great during the interview, but I would have demanded to know who was paying Stephanopoulos to push the republican talking point. Even when Biden brought up tRump’s lies and actions, Stephanopoulos did not talk about it, only again turning to ask if Biden was not too old and mentally gone to do the job. Hugs. Scottie
I debated ways to share this video. It is grand, great, and the people are heroes for doing what they are in those conditions. Look Ron and I left New England because my bones hurt so bad every winter. We did not know then that my bones were dying. Back to the video, I want to give Ten Bears credit as it was him who found and posted it. But really I know we are all busy, I am scrambling right now to get to as much as possible before the notifications reset and I lose all these wonderful posts. Again it is a wonderfully informative short video, I would recommend if like me you don’t want to see the sea levels rise so your home is in water, watch the people trying to help stop it. Hugs, and thanks to Ten Bears. Scottie
Ali also sent me this link on March 1st, and while it is more something Ten Bears would post at his blog (link will be below, one of the new ways that WordPress is messing up blogging in classic is that if I include a link it wipes the entire classic part out and changes it to a block) I will post it here to clear my tabs. Hugs. Scottie
(Photo by Wendy Maeda/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
February 29, 2024
Increased numbers of preterm babies, higher incidence of respiratory disease and death, and more children in hospitals are some of the health outcomes the world is facing from the impacts of extreme climate change according to a comprehensive assessment of climate change and children’s health.
A new study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment identified which particular climate-driven extremes are linked to certain detrimental health impacts for future generations.
The study led by Dr Lewis Weeda, a researcher with The University of Western Australia and the Wal-yan Respiratory Research Centre at Telethon Kids Institute, and Matthew Flinders Professor of Global Ecology, Corey Bradshaw, from Flinders University shows that the risk of a preterm birth will increase by 60% on average from exposure to extreme temperatures.
The researchers reviewed the results of 163 health studies from around the world to inform planning by governments that could mitigate and improve health outcomes for future generations against the impacts of climate change.
Bradshaw says the global data revealed a worrying increase in preterm birth rates that could cause lifelong complications for millions of children around the world.
Corey Bradshaw
“We identified many direct links between climate change and child health, the strongest of which was a 60% increased risk on average of preterm birth from exposure to temperature extremes,” he says. “Respiratory diseases, mortality, and morbidity, among others, were also made worse by climate change.
“The effects of different air pollutants on children’s health outcomes were smaller compared to temperature effects, but most pollutants still had an effect of some type, so the news is concerning. The children’s health issues we identified depend on weather extremes — cold extremes give rise to respiratory diseases, while drought and extreme rainfall can result in stunted growth for a population.”
Most of the analysed studies were in high-income nations, despite the fact that children in lower-income countries are most likely to go without adequate access to healthcare, infrastructure, and stable food supply.
The researchers warn that health risks vary across continents and depend on socio-economic circumstances. The research revealed that even advanced economies would not avoid the impacts of climate change on children’s health.
“Given that climate influences childhood disease, social and financial costs will continue to rise as climate change progresses, placing increasing pressure on families and health services. For example, asthma has been estimated to cost as much as US$1.5 billion due to a single fire season in the future,” Professor Bradshaw says.
Geography also dictated the health impacts of climate change. For example, in Australia, extreme temperatures have led to an increase in premature births on the East Coast, Northern Territory, and Western Australia and enhanced respiratory issues in Queensland, while similar temperatures have caused higher mortality rates in South Africa.
Dr Weeda said action is required to protect children from climate-related disease.
“The development of public health policies to counter these climate-related diseases, alongside efforts to reduce anthropogenic climate change, must be addressed if we are to protect current and future children.”
“Finding solutions and implementing climate adaptation and mitigation policies would positively impact multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Climate change is universal and adversely affecting all countries and people, and we must prepare societies for mounting threats to child health.”
The Science of the Total Environmentpaper is titled ‘How climate change degrades child health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.’
Here is the video Jerry was talking about. I warn you that it shows the damage to people, children, and the environment greed and unregulated business will cause. Hugs. Scottie
Study confirms Altria, Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are worst offenders
Plastic pollution on a Welsh beach. Volunteers collected and surveyed plastic waste across 84 countries over five years. Photograph: Paul Quayle/Alamy
Fewer than 60 multinationals are responsible for more than half of the world’s plastic pollution, with six responsible for a quarter of that, based on the findings of a piece of research published on Wednesday.
The researchers concluded that for every percentage increase in plastic produced, there was an equivalent increase in plastic pollution in the environment.
“Production really is pollution,” says one of the study’s authors, Lisa Erdle, director of science at the non-profit The 5 Gyres Institute.
An international team of volunteers collected and surveyed more than 1,870,000 items of plastic waste across 84 countries over five years: the bulk of the rubbish collected was single-use packaging for food, beverage, and tobacco products.
Less than half of that plastic litter had discernible branding that could be traced back to the company that produced the packaging; the rest could not be accounted for or taken responsibility for.
“This shows very, very, very well the need for transparency and traceability,” says a study author, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, a plastic pollution researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre. “[We need] to know who is producing what, so they can take responsibility, right?”
The branded half of the plastic was the responsibility of just 56 fast-moving consumer goods multinational companies, and a quarter of that was from just six companies.
The two tobacco companies Altria and Philip Morris International combined made up 2% of the branded plastic litter found, both Danone and Nestlé each produced 3% of it, PepsiCo was responsible for 5% of the discarded packaging, and 11% of branded plastic waste could be traced to the Coca-Cola company.
“The industry likes to put the responsibility on the individual,” says the study’s author, Marcus Eriksen, a plastic pollution expert from The 5 Gyres Institute.
“But we’d like to point out that it’s the brands, it’s their choice for the kinds of packaging [they use] and for embracing this throwaway model of delivering their goods. That’s what’s causing the greatest abundance of trash.”
The Guardian approached Altria, Philip Morris International, Danone, Nestlé, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company.
The Coca-Cola Company said: “We care about the impact of every drink we sell and are committed to growing our business in the right way.” It has pledged to make 100% of its packaging recyclable globally by 2025, and to use at least 50% recycled material in packaging by 2030.
Nestlé said it has reduced its virgin plastic usage by 14.9% in the last five years, and supports schemes around the world to develop waste collection and recycling schemes.
“Since launching our voluntary commitments to address plastic waste five years ago, we have significantly outperformed the market at large in reducing virgin plastic and increasing recyclability, according to the most recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,” it said.
The company also supports the creation of a global legally binding regulation on plastic pollution which is being negotiated this week.
Danone said: “We continue to strive to reduce our own plastic footprint – between 2018-2023 we reduced our plastic use by 8% equivalent to 62 000 tons and increased the recyclability of our packaging (84% of our packaging is recyclable, reusable or compostable). We continue to support and push for improved collection and recycling infrastructures to help consumers recycle.” They also support “an ambitious and binding … UN Global Plastic Treaty which would represent a major opportunity to unlock and accelerate progress on plastics circularity.”
Both PMI and Altria contest the accuracy of the data collected.
Plastic in the Depths: how pollution took over our oceans
Read more
However, while many of these companies have taken voluntary measures to improve their impact on plastic pollution, the experts behind the study argue they are not working. Plastic production has doubled since the beginning of 2000 and studies show only 9% of plastic is being recycled.
When the team collected data on self-reported yearly plastic packaging production for each of these multinational companies and compared it with the data from their 1,500-plus litter surveys, their statistical analysis showed that every 1% increase in plastic production was directly correlated with approximately a 1% increase in plastic pollution.
“Actually seeing this one-to-one increase, I was like, wow,” says a study author, Kathy Willis, a marine socio-ecologist from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia.
“Time and time again from our science we see that we really need to be capping how much plastic we are producing.”
However, Kartik Chandran, an environmental engineer at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research, said that while this new data was striking, the observation that 1% plastic production was equal to 1% plastic pollution was “a bit unrealistic” and “simplistic”.
He said the data did not consider plastic pollution in China, Korea and Japan, nor take into consideration recycling or clean-up initiatives under way.
A better analysis could be based on the net plastic flows into plastic production – also accounting for credits from the reuse of plastic materials – and the net plastic load ascribed as plastic pollution.
The team behind the study, some of whom are participating in the talks being held in Ottawa this week to discuss a UN Treaty for Plastic Pollution, said their findings emphasised the urgent need for a globally binding treaty focusing on production measures.
The talks will run to Monday, and Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK, told the Guardian earlier this week he was hopeful that countries would come together to secure an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.
“It is very important we are negotiating this treaty now. The world is in a triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. But while there are agreements in place for the first two, we have no legislation, no global agreement on plastic pollution.”
(Photo by Wendy Maeda/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)February 29, 2024
Plastic pollution on a Welsh beach. Volunteers collected and surveyed plastic waste across 84 countries over five years. Photograph: Paul Quayle/Alamy
Scottie's Playtime 