Posted on

Ending Fossil Fuels

The Goal

I think many people agree, in an era of global warming, air pollution and international agreements like the Paris accord, we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels.  That at least seems like the obvious direction to head in.  Alternatives like sequestering carbon, which may be very important in the future, don’t seem viable at the moment.

Although I believe agriculture has a very important role to play in carbon sequestration, I also believe it’s important to phase out fossil fuels, at least in the way they are used today.  I think it may be possible to continue to use fossil fuels, in a very modest and efficient way, if they end up being the best solution under limited circumstances.  The issue is more that today they are used in very inefficient ways.

Air Pollution

I’m very unhappy air pollution is being used as a red herring in the issue of global warming.  If we phase out fossil fuels, cleaner air will certainly be a consequence.  Unlike climate change, when the sources of air pollution are addressed, the effects are pretty immediate and air quality rapidly improves.  Climate change however is something we will all have to live with during our lifetimes, no matter what we do now to address it.

I’m certainly in favor of taking steps to improve air quality, especially in the world’s largest cities, where it’s a major problem today.  At the same time, reasonable steps are being taken, and continue to be taken, and air quality in most places is improving.  Air quality should not be an obstacle to addressing climate change, except possibly on a localized basis, where it’s an unusually serious problem.

Air quality is also something that has not been well quantified by realities around us.  For example, we all know smoking is bad for you, and in many places lung cancer has even become the leading cause of death.  This is something that’s a clear and obvious threat.  Air pollution is less clear, and while politicians consider it top priority, very little is being done to make it a relevant day to day issue for people.  Lots of questions exist in my mind about the strategies being used to address air pollution.

For example, the two major components of diesel pollution are nitrous oxides and PM2.5 nano-particles.  While I don’t deny these are dangerous, the issue is putting them into perspective.  In the Netherlands, the places where nitrous oxide levels are considered high enough to be a health threat are in areas around intensive meat farms.  I’m not aware of any serious efforts under way to address this pollution.

I also don’t have any reference for considering PM2.5.  Who are the people dying or made sick by it?  What are their symptoms and medical diagnoses?  Besides politicians considering it serious, what other credible metrics can ordinary people use to gage it’s seriousness?  Why is it that since the industrial revolution air quality has been an issue, but only now is it so urgent?  This has not been well enough explained, and there is not enough independent science addressing the issue.

What about all of the freight being hauled by diesel fuel around the world: boats, trucks/lorries, trains?  I read somewhere that diesel cars produce more pollution than other sources.  Okay, if we accept that as true, a lot is being done to address the issue with cars.  For example we now have low sulphur fuel and  the EURO6 standard for diesel cars in Europe, although many people consider this inadequate.  What is being done for the other sources of diesel pollution?  Surely these cannot be considered completely insignificant?  We have all lived with diesel pollution for all of our lives, so why is it so urgent now and isn’t it getting better anyway?  If we phase out the use of fossil fuels, isn’t this a problem that will solve itself?

Why do we urgently need to address the issue of diesel pollution at the expense of climate change?  At the moment diesel is one of the best, most established and cheapest technologies for reducing greenhouse emissions.  Even hybrid electric cars are generally not more efficient than diesels, and diesels generally emit less greenhouse gases.

The High Price of Electricity

As a world, we pay a very high price for maintaining an electric grid and generating electricity centrally.  It’s a very inefficient way to produce and distribute energy, it’s main benefit is convenience.  Much of the generated electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels like coal or natural gas, and it’s often much more efficient to use these fossil fuels directly, to heat homes or run engines.  We take major risks using nuclear technologies for this purpose.  Even so-called renewable sources have their costs, cluttering landscapes and filling farmland with windmills or vast solar panel arrays, which all have their energy costs for construction and disposal.

At the moment, no one could even begin to argue that using electricity as a substitute for other fuels is a greener thing to do.  Only about 5% of electricity comes from renewable sources now.  Even if in the future we are able to generate 100% of our electricity from renewable sources, there will still be environmental costs.  Some people even argue that nuclear power is green, because there’s no greenhouse gas emissions.

The argument that switching to electric cars is more environmentally friendly is seriously flawed.  Now you have the inefficiencies of generating and transporting electricity that’s not sustainably produced, and even once that’s addressed you will still have problems associated with sustainable energy production as well as the manufacturing and disposal costs of the electric cars themselves.  It’s very unlikely modern lithium ion car batteries will ever be effectively recycled, together with the rest of the circuitry in a modern electric car.  In fact a great deal of mined finite resources go into electric cars, with few if any recycling possibilities.  Air pollution is another issue, and electric cars may make sense in some areas for this reason, but electric cars are unlikely to be a complete or sustainable solution for climate change.

Another problem with electric cars is their enormous power consumption.  You may not think of a light vehicle driving around on a battery as a fuel hog, but modern batteries are in fact very large and powerful.  Those of you familiar with 3-phase power may appreciate that electric cars benefit with faster charging with such a connection, and in some cases an electric car can consume many times more than an entire household.  Such a massive expansion of our power grids is not going to be a benefit to the environment, it’s only going to make the energy companies bigger and more powerful, and the wealthiest people richer.  Reducing energy consumption is a better approach than increasing it.

It’s also an incomplete argument that you might be able to choose the energy company you buy power from, and therefore can buy renewable energy.  If you draw power from the electric grid, it tends to come from the closest source.  If the closest source is a nuclear plant, then that’s where your power comes from.  Who you pay for using that power is more political than anything else, and is too dependent on government subsidies and taxes.  It’s false logic to say that if everyone stops paying for non-renewable energy it will cease to exist, there are simply too many variables at play.  If you want renewable energy, you need to generate it yourself.

Local Generation and Tesla vs Edison

Solar panels and electric cars have something very important in common, they both operate on DC current.  On the other hand our houses operate on AC.  Electricity generated by turning a turbine, like almost all modern electricity production, is also AC.

Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison are arguably two of the most important pioneers in electric power engineering.  It turns out the two of them worked side by side and had some very important philosophical differences, especially regarding the benefits of AC vs DC.

The main difference is that AC can be more easily transported greater distances by means of a power grid, but DC is safer because the voltage is generally lower and can be stored more easily.  It’s also a little costly to convert to and from AC and DC.  In the end Tesla won, and except for small battery powered devices, we use AC almost exclusively at home.

Now, if we need DC power for example to charge our phones, we plug a converter into an electric outlet.

What’s interesting, now with solar panels and electric cars, is the same debates Edison and Tesla had are coming back.  Since both solar panels and electric cars work on DC, it actually may be better to reassess if we actually need AC power at all, and if it would be better to base most things on DC power, and use a converter to change to AC when it’s really necessary.

Without AC power, it would not be possible to transfer it long distances with a power grid.  However with the technology of solar panels rapidly improving and getting cheaper, it may be possible to generate the majority of our power locally.  The problem now is it’s generally not feasible to power an electric car with solar panels alone, because a lot of solar panels are needed and electric cars need to be charged too frequently and rapidly.  It is however feasible to power your home with solar panels, and if necessary to store the excess energy in a battery, possibly even a car battery.  Converters can be used when necessary to power devices designed to operate on AC.  This is not the future, this is very much the reality now.

What’s handy, especially because we are in a transition phase now where we still have an important electric grid, is being able to feed back to the grid.  More specifically, there is a device called a grid-tie inverter, that converts DC power to AC in a form that can be fed onto the grid.  This means the grid acts as a sort of large battery, and you can draw the power back when you need it.  A grid-tie inverter can be purchased for as little as €100, and assuming your house is not fitted with a ‘smart meter’, you can feed onto the grid without your energy company knowing about it.  A standard electric meter will turn forward when you use electricity, and backwards when you feed back to the grid.

A grid-tie inverter simply plugs into a standard electric outlet.  If your grid-tie inverter has a capacity of more than 500w, it would be a good idea to use a dedicated circuit for it.  An alternative is to use more than one inverter on different circuits, or a battery with a charge controller to delay feeding some of the power back to the grid to hours when there is little or no power coming from your solar panels.

Glass panel solar panels are now old school.

The latest solar panels are plastic and weigh about 1kg.  They usually have grommets in the corners, and can be tied down with rope or fastened on a wall with a screw.  They are more efficient than solar panels from a few years ago, meaning they work better in lower light environments and don’t necessarily need to get full sun all day long.  A south facing wall is a good location.  They are intended for ‘temporary installation’, meaning building permits are often not necessary and you can take them with you when you move.  You also don’t need to put holes in your roof during installation.  The electricity they generate is DC, which means there is little risk of shocks, and they are generally safer than standard household electricity.

The wiring is easy for anyone with very basic handyman skills, but be sure to pay attention to the current rating of the various components and ensure you are using sufficiently heavy cabling.

The relationship between watts, amps and voltage is as follows:

I = amps
E = voltage
P = watts

P = I * E
I = P / E
E = P / I

For a short length, typical installation, a 4mm cable is sufficient for 30A and a 6mm cable is sufficient for 50A.  For distances longer than a few meters, be sure to consult an online calculator for the correct cable size.  To save on wiring costs, consider installing a 24V system instead of a 12V one.  24V can be made by connecting 2 12V or 18V panels in series.  Solar panels can be connected in parallel to combine their current outputs.

Poor connections, pinched cables or overloaded components are all fire hazards.  Be sure to pay attention to these things.

In my case, a 2kW installation would meet most of my needs.  That’s about 20 x 100w panels (€160 each), a grid-tie inverter for about €200, battery controller and battery, and some wiring.  About €4000 in total, for a system that should generate about €500 of electricity per year at current prices.  This would require about 10m2 of space on a wall or roof.  All the work can be dome by most people themselves often without permits, just figure out what you need, buy the parts and install it.  Everything can be bought online, almost anywhere in the world.

Prices will almost certainly come down further, so waiting might be a good idea.

My Conclusions

According to your personal situation, consider installing as many solar panels as is reasonable and possible.  Consider doing it yourself, or hiring a simple handyman.  Consider a long-term ‘temporary’ installation, without a contract with the energy company and without building permits.  Consider the technology is rapidly changing, so if you are forced to sell your house with the solar panels still installed, it may be like trying to sell an old computer.  Your house may have less resale value, and the new owner may want to install newer and better solar panels.

If you manage to install enough solar panels to heat and cool your house, as well as cook, great.  Otherwise, consider natural gas where possible.  This is more efficient than buying electricity.  When you are completely satisfied that the electricity powering the grid is better, then buy the electricity.

If you live in one of the larger cities where air pollution is a serious problem, consider if you need to buy an electric car.  Also, if you are able to generate enough electricity for a car, and only intend to drive it locally and charge at home, this might also be an option.  Otherwise, consider buying a diesel.

By some accounts, the greenhouse gasses and other environmental problems coming from the power grid, is much worse than that of cars.

Remember, the goal is to minimize fossil fuel use.  Think about this, don’t waste money on expensive new junk, and try not to buy consumer items that will become problems to dispose of in environmentally friendly ways.  Remember to consider the energy used in manufacturing, transporting and recycling your purchase.

It’s better to do what’s right, then to do what politicians and corporations tell us to do.

Posted on

Glyphosate ECI — Democracy Stolen

The organizers of the Glyphosate European Citizens’ Initiative issued a press release today claiming victory. Here’s a snapshot of the campaign page for future reference.

Activist Organizations as Proxies

This is a battle of Monsanto and Bayer against small farmers, plain and simple.  The patents on glyphosate have long since expired, and the sale of the product doesn’t result in high corporate profits any more.  Bayer is in the process of acquiring Monsanto, and wants to sell farmers new solutions for controlling weeds, that are more expensive and patented.  This is a similar situation as the banning of old TVs and light bulbs.

Glyphosate is an emotional issue.  Many activists have been against it for a long time now, and in general against all use of pesticides.  Glyphosate is particularly emotional for many of us, because we have come into contact with it through other gardeners, farmers and it’s even been used by local governments in urban areas.  It’s a horrendous health and environmental issue, but for better or worse, it’s also a critical tool for many farmers.

There’s been very little direct news from Bayer of Monsanto on this issue.  We hear things like ‘analysts say this ECI will cost Bayer millions of euros in Europe alone’ — but no confirmation from Bayer on this.  Neither Bayer nor Monsanto seem the least bit opposed to this campaign.  They are just sitting back and watching everything unfold.

Instead of involving themselves directly on the issue, these big companies are using a combination of fake activist organizations, together with other paid or tricked organizations, to promote their message and pretend this is some sort of activist issue.

There is no democratic control of this campaign, no way for participants to voice their opinions and influence the outcome.  I believe many of the people and organizations that gave their name and reputations in support of this measure, are aghast at how this has become a vicious attack on Europe’s farmers, small and large, but have no real way to voice that opinion.

Unrealistic Amounts of Money

There was a time, as recently as 5-10 years ago, when some of these health and environmental organizations were credible.  In particular, here in The Netherlands, for many people giving significant amounts of money to charitable organizations was an important part of their life.  Some of these organizations became obscenely wealthy as a result.  These days are gone, and people today realize if you give money to an environmental organization, your money is dwarfed by large corporate or philanthropist contributions, and as an individual donor you have no possibility of influencing them.  In the end, your contribution often doesn’t support the kinds of causes you think it should.

On the other hand, corporations and the wealthiest individuals have become particularly adept at using these organizations for their own purposes.

To put things in perspective, one of the most important seed initiatives right now, the Open Source Seed Initiative, after several years of fund raising, mentioned recently on their web page they had raised on the order of tens of thousands of dollars.  This isn’t really enough to hire a single person for an entire year.  The glyphosate ECI on the other hand is clearly involving millions of euros, and tens, hundreds or even thousands of people, many of whom are very skilled and highly paid lobbyists.

No Evidence of Real Signatures Being Collected

Signatures on a petition are understandably low on the radar in terms of considering forgeries.   At the same time, they are very susceptible to being manipulated with large amounts of money.  You can for example pay a student minimum wage to collect signatures from their friends, but you can also pay thousands of students to do the same thing.  You can also collect signatures at workplaces, under the watchful eye of their employers.

If you spend a lot of money this way, it can be visible, and people can ask questions about where the money is coming from.  If you copy signatures from an earlier ECI, probably no one would notice.  The same thing is true if you happened to have a list of people’s personal data, for example dates of birth and address, and forged the signatures as a sort of identity theft.  Who would notice this, and who would investigate?

What I can say with respect to this blog is that it is visible in Google, shared on Facebook and very visible to anyone researching this ECI.  Of the million plus people who signed it, only a few hundred were interested enough to research it on the Internet, and have ended up on this blog.

There’s no convincing publicly available evidence that any real persons have signed this initiative of their own free will.

Fake News, Fake Blogs and an Orchestrated Campaign

The Internet is swimming in fake and inconsequential news articles and blog posts on glyphosate right now.  Very few of them are real news outlets, and certainly very few big name papers or news sites.

They all repeat the same stories over and over, just slightly rewritten from site to site.  There’s no real debate, and very few offering different opinions or the perspective of farmers.

There have been very few announcements of events or promotional activities.  No real compelling news has emerged during this campaign.  The signatures have just appeared out of nowhere, without any reason or explanation.  In addition, the signatures appeared just in time, as the organizers planned, right at the end of June.

Fake Science with Changing Rules

The debate over science is almost laughable.  First all science has to be published articles, but most patent holders can block studies on their own products.  At the same time, loads of unpublished studies and unsupported facts emerge from anonymous sources, and they are supposed to be considered by the Commission.

The EU is supposed to only use ‘real’ science, but all of the science available is funded by industry.

The ECI itself even includes language that could possibly force all future science to be paid for and approved by the pesticide manufactures themselves.

It’s all just a catch-22 and all the arguments and debates are looping back on themselves.

Farming Crisis

There is and has been for a long time now, a farming crisis in Europe.  In the Netherlands, a tiny country of 17 million people, 10,000 farms are for sale now.  Many farmers report their children are not interested in becoming farmers themselves, or taking over the family business.  Not enough young people have the interest or financial means to start farming.  There is land grabbing which is driving the price of the most desirable land sharply up, while farming communities are reeling from the collapse of the family farming economy and the unprecedented numbers of farms on the market.

Banning glyphosate is all that’s needed to drive many more farmers into bankruptcy.

This is a very serious situation.

No Compromise

The organizations behind the glyphosate ECI are relentless in where they stand.  No compromises.  Glyphosate must be banned.  No sympathy for farmers.

The Real Solution

The real solution is extending the glyphosate license for 15 years, like the farmers are asking for, then highly regulate glyphosate.  It should only be available to farmers, and it should not be used in public spaces or near people’s homes.  Appropriate safety measures should be taken to avoid accidental contamination and contact with farm workers.

Genuine effort should be taken to encourage farmers to stop using glyphosate or any other pesticide, through education and incentives, rather than an absolute ban.

Consumers should have more information about what their food has been treated with, and have more opportunity to buy it from trustworthy sources.

Failing Europe

If the Commission accepts this ECI, and the arguements given for banning glyphosate, they are ignoring all their critics of an undemocratic Europe that ignores the wishes of the people.

Posted on

Food Industry Fake News Roundup

There are a number of interrelated campaigns coming from the food industry at the moment.  Here are some which have my attention, and some of my thoughts.

Food Waste

I think any time you see an issue appearing as supposedly ‘real news’ as often as this, it should set off your fake news alarm.  Of course food waste is an issue, and something every one should care about.  It’s nice of course that free food is often made available from this waste.

I also hope the prospect of supermarkets removing the expiration dates on foods is enough to make everyone want to buy their food elsewhere.  This is a plain violation of consumers rights.

While it’s true there’s a lot of waste in our food distribution systems, the real issue is how our food is produced.  If you buy an organic apple from a local farmer at a farmers market, then throw it away, preferably on a compost pile, there’s very little waste.  The only thing wasted is a little bit of the farmers time, and the energy used to transport it to the market and to your house.  If the farmer has some crops he can’t sell, and disposes of them on his farm, then there’s almost no waste.

On the other hand if you buy an out of season apple, from the other side of the planet, there can be an enormous waste if you throw this away.  This apple has probably been treated with resource intensive and environmentally destructive pesticides and fertilizer.  It has to be transported a long distance.  If you buy it in the supermarket, it will probably come with excessive packaging and shipping materials you never see.  It probably won’t taste good, and will need a wax coating to keep it looking fresh.

Meat of course tops the list in terms of wastefulness, together with animal products in general.  The amount of energy, water use and environmental destruction involved in producing the meat commonly sold today is astonishing.  It’s not impossible to buy responsibly raised animal products, but these are in short supply and it’s not possible to meet world wide demand with these.  Becoming vegetarian or vegan is the most important thing you can do to fight food waste.

The best food to buy is locally produced and distributed, grown without chemicals, from a farmer you know and trust, but not necessarily certified organic.  Even if you throw some of what you buy away, there’s almost no environmental cost with this type of food.

What’s certain is demanding that supermarkets selling industrially produced food somehow become less wasteful is a silly thing to do.  At best this is a short term solution until you can find a better source of food.

Glyphosate European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)

I’ve written about this before.  At best this ECI was poorly written, but the idea of banning a single pesticide by name is seriously flawed.  There are a number of other problems which I talked about before.

The other thing to be concerned about is democracy in general.  At the time I posted the article linked to above, there were about 350,000 signatures on the ECI.  Now there are nearly 700,000.  The article could be what some people call ‘click bait’.  That is, it has a very provocative title, and is very visible to anyone searching Google on the ECI.  If 350,000 people were actually interested in this ECI, logic suggests they would research it and follow developments on the Internet, and a large number of them would end up reading my article.  This hasn’t really happened, and to date only a few hundred people have found the article via Google, and some may have read it more than once.

Somehow, the ECI is being signed by large numbers of people who don’t seem to care about the issue.

The good thing is a healthy discussion seems to be underway in Brussels.

I don’t think a complete ban of glyphosate is the solution, nor do I think trying to change the current industrial system by phasing out the chemicals they use is very practical either.  I certainly think there are many useful ways to restrict the use of glyphosate and other pesticides, for example: only selling them to people licensed to use agriculture chemicals;  requiring farmers be equipped with protective clothing, equipment and safe workplace practices; and prohibiting use in cities and other public spaces.

The reality is the current system of farming is the result of many billions of euros in investment over decades, and a similar investment is probably necessary in a replacement system based on agroecology.  I think the European institutions need to come to grips with the idea that the current system needs to be phased out, and a long term, massive and sustained investment is needed to create a new system.  This needs to address many issues like land grabbing, distribution systems, rural development and so on.

No Patents on Seeds

This issue is simple.  It’s very important to end patents on seeds, but the people running the campaign on this issue are not doing what they say.  They are only trying to end patents on conventionally bred seeds, leaving the door open to patents on GMOs.  This is flawed, and would make the situation worse than it is now.

Monsanto Tribunal

Campaigns are all about the people behind them, and this is a classic example of the wrong people with the wrong ideas.  This is not unlike the No Patents on Seeds above.

We would all like to see Monsanto tried and convicted of their crimes, but this idea almost seems lost by the organizers.  The very unremarkable verdict in the trial came out the other day, and it seems unlikely they’ll be able to bring the matter forward in a useful way.

What was the Monsanto Tribunal all about?

Silencing Opposition and Controlling the Message: I was there, and I certainly felt my opinion wasn’t welcome.   I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.

Lobbying for Industrial Agriculture:  Brussels based lobby group CEO (Corporate Europe Observatory) was prominently featured, as was the No Patents on Seeds and the Ban Glyphosate group.

Organic Consumers Association:  I hope just the name of this organization rings alarm bells in most people.  Think of it, an ‘activist’ organization that demands organic standards be improved?  This is a bit like teaching us all to eat industrial organic food from the supermarket.  This goes together with lobbying for industrial agriculture above.

Dutch Racist Groups: Only ethnic Dutch people were featured as speakers or relevant parts of the organization.  At least one group well known for their racism was a prominent part of the organization.  This is very typical of the food industry in the Netherlands, which is often family run going back generations, and often like to portray their products as ‘clean’ and ‘pure’.  Not a single food movement from the immigrant community of the Hague was featured in the organization or speakers, a city rich in ethnic diversity and culture.  In a comical way, seemingly to cover up this racism, the presence of a large number of people from Asian, African and Middle Eastern countries was imported by the organizers.

We just had elections here in the Netherlands, and I think the outcome is proof that most people here don’t like this sort of ethnic division and exclusion.  I hope the organizers are listening.

 

Posted on

What is Fake News?

Fake news can take many forms.  In broad terms, fake news is a lie someone publishes in order to influence public opinion.  For the purposes of this blog, fake news is usually one or more corporations or super-wealthy persons, who are trying to promote a product or industry.  The basic form this fake news takes is often very predictable, and fundamentally hasn’t changed in decades.

Fake news often originates from corporate lobby efforts.  The largest lobby groups in the world now, in order of size, are the food industry, the tobacco lobby and the oil industry.  Of course there are many others.  Nearly all fake news come from these groups, sometimes more than one of them combined, and you can often recognize fake news by associating it with these groups.

Fake news rarely comes directly from one of the above mentioned groups, but rather a seemingly unrelated organization.  For example, health and environmental organizations are frequently used to spread the fake news message.  These are often well known or generally trusted organizations, who put their names behind the message.  These organizations often have names or stated goals, that have nothing to do with what they really do.

Fake news is almost always a one-way message.  It often seemingly appears out of nowhere, and there’s no way to discuss or influence the message.  For example, a TV ad is just presented, and there is no direct way to respond.  Another example would be a public rally or meeting, without any real advanced warning on the material to be discussed, and no way to give your opinion.

Fake news often attacks a particular product or groups of products, that compete with a commercial product belonging to the source of the fake news.  This is often some cheap alternative they wish to have removed from the market.  An example of this would be standard light bulbs or square TVs, which compete with newer and more expensive alternatives.

The message also is often presented together with cited and published scientific research.  The reason is to intimidate the average person, who won’t have access to the means of generating such research on their own.

There is often a really emotional side to fake news, with very strong imagery.  It sometimes has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is just intended to shock you.

Fake news often doesn’t come out of the blue, but rather there has been some ongoing effort to make the topic familiar with other activities.

Your Brain on Drugs

This American TV ad from the 1980’s is a very good example of many of the points I made above.  At the time, the Tobacco Lobby was the most powerful lobby force in the US, and it was later confirmed the sponsoring organization Partnership for a Drug Free America accepted money from tobacco companies.

The strategy tobacco companies take, then and now, is to make all alternative products as unavailable as possible.  For example, they were behind prohibition in the US, where the sale of alcohol was banned.

After prohibition, they established a sort of partnership with the alcohol industry.   This resulted in drinking and smoking ages, smoking always the same or lower than alcohol and little or no enforcement.   The goal here was to see young people first become addicted to tobacco, then reinforce this addiction with an addiction to alcohol.

So in this video you have an organization, Partnership for a Drug Free America, who’s name doesn’t have anything to do with what they actually promote.  Their real goal is to get young people addicted to cigarettes.  As an organization, they gained trust through ties with right-wing conservative Christian groups, who were very influential at the time, especially with parents of young children.

So if you were a parent at the time, were afraid your children might be using drugs, and tempted to give this organization money.  What you would actually be supporting was efforts to get your children to start smoking.

At the end of this video, “Any questions?”, is an example of the one-way nature of the message.  There is no way to talk back to or influence this message or organization.  They have one goal, to promote tobacco.  Their message is tobacco is okay, and everything else is drugs.

What Can You Do?

If you are a supporter or a part of an organization that promotes fake news, you can talk back and make others aware.  You can post about it on the Internet, social media or just tell others.  The more the truth about fake news gets out, the less effective it is.

If you’re an activist, and an organization you support publishes fake news, you should be very suspicious of anything else they ever tell you.  People sometimes make mistakes, but organizations generally don’t, and publishing fake news is an indication they are careless or being influenced.

Most large and wealthy organizations are not what they seem to be.  The world’s wealthy 1% often exert their power and control over us through these organizations and fake news.  You are often better off participating in a smaller organization that is more democratic in their way of thinking and working.  Any organization that doesn’t care about what you think, isn’t worth paying attention to.

Other Example of Fake News

Once you find a fake news story, one of the best ways of finding others is to look for something related.  For example the BBC is full of fake news, and it’s one of my favorite places to look.

If one environmental organization has a fake news campaign, look at the other organizations that are also promoting the same thing, and look at some of their other messages.

There are currently campaigns trying to phase out diesel engines, because they are old technology, and promote newer more expensive electric vehicle technologies.  Gasoline/benzine/petrol is also a more profitable fuel for the oil industry than diesel.

The food industry is trying to get people to pay attention to ingredients in food, rather than the quality of food itself.  This helps them promote their processed foods.  They are also trying to phase out common and cheap ingredients, like salt and sugar, in order to promote more profitable alternatives.

This blog has a Fake News category, with other examples of fake news.

Posted on

Glyphosate: Celebrating 43 Years of Failure

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the well known herbicide RoundUp.  First used in 1974, it’s now been on the market 43 years, and has become the world’s most widely used herbicide.  It’s pollution is widespread; it pollutes land, surface and groundwater, and our food.  One test showed detectable levels in 1 out of every 2 people tested.

Glyphosate is a ‘probable carcinogen’, and associated with a long list of other health and reproductive problems.

It’s used by farmers, gardeners, cities and municipalities and others all over the world.  Huge numbers of people come in physical contact with it every day.  People use it in their own gardens, but also spray it other places.  I’ve been through RoundUp wars in my community gardens, where gardeners sprayed it in each others gardens, and heard of many similar stories with home gardeners.

Most people I know who use it are completely unaware of the dangers, and don’t think anything of endangering others.  Certainly local governments are rarely concerned about using it in public spaces.

We’ve now had 43 years of complete failure.  Governments have failed us by approving it’s use, and not properly regulating it.  Farmers and corporations have failed us, by putting profit and greed before our health.  NGOs and environmental organizations have failed us, by failing to speak out loudly and effectively against a flawed and failing system of industrial agriculture and it’s poisons.  There are no winners and no victories, only complete failure.

End of Life

Now we’ve finally reached glyphosate’s useful end of life.  All relevant patents have expired, and there’s no way for the world’s wealthiest 1% to make grotesque profits from it’s use any more.  It’s available in cheap generic formulations.  There are super weeds in many areas that are resistant to it.  In addition there are many newer, more effective, herbicides in the research pipeline.  It’s time to send it the way of the standard light bulb, and ban it, so everyone who currently uses it is forced onto more expensive and possibly more dangerous alternatives.

Want to help out?  If you live in Europe, there’s a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) calling for glyphosate to be banned.  With your signature, you can help make the world’s wealthy wealthier and help increase corporate profits.

In Europe the funding of organizations is always a secret, and the only way you can follow the trail of money is by taking notice of an organizations activities and partners.  Many of the organizations putting their names forward on this initiative are the same ones that have failed us in the past, and are known to accept money from the food industry.

The Real Solution

The real solution is a complete reform of the food industry, grassroots driven, top to bottom.  We need to address those profit mechanisms that have polluted the world with RoundUp.  We need a complete rethink of the way our food is grown, and how it’s paid for.