Jimmy Mengel - Angel Publishing

Weekly Spotlight: Ecotech Quebec

Montreal played host to the inaugural meeting of the Global Cleantech Cluster Association (GCCA) this year as part of the Ecocity World Summit.

The meeting brought together global leaders in the cleantech industry in order to combine resources and help speed up cleantech development...

"We are very pleased to have convinced GCCA that Québec is the ideal place to hold its very first international conference," Denis Leclerc, Écotech Québec's President and CEO remarked.

"We have focused primarily on the fact that Québec is home of key cleantech companies and several international environmental organizations and that the province is firmly committed to "greening" the economy and fighting climate change."

Leclerc gave the opening remarks at the conference.

Écotech Québec was launched last year and is the first cluster of its kind to emerge in Canada. The cluster consists of cleantech companies, governmental organizations, and financiers who can help one another fulfill needs in each area of cleantech.

The cluster's mission is to unite the cleantech industry and 'green' the Québec economy while branding Québec as a hotbed of cleantech cooperation.

It supports entrepreneurs in "accelerating the design, development, adoption, commercialization, and export of clean technologies."

"Our ultimate goal is to create ideal conditions for accelerating the development of clean technology and facilitating its adoption and commercialization," said Andrée-Lise Méthot, chair of the board.

And they're well on the way. Écotech Québec is nominated for a number of GCCA Later Stage awards:

Energy Efficiency - Volts Energies
Green Buildings - Carnot Refrigeration , SCL Elements Inc. (Can2go)
Renewable Energy, Other - Bio-Lub Canada. Enerkem Inc., Innoventé Inc.
Solar – SOLART
Waste - Biothermica Technologies, Newalta Corporation
Water - PremierTech Environmental Technologies Group

You can check out all of the nominees here.

Keep an eye on Green Chip Stocks for ongoing coverage.

Be Well,

Jimmy Mengel

Weekly Spotlight: Flanders Cleantech Association

Belgium is world renowned for their trifecta of gastronomical delights: chocolate, waffles, and beer.

But the European country is home to much more than fine food and drink...

Both the EU and NATO keep their headquarters in Brussels, and the city has been carving a name for itself as a crucial hub for European cleantech for some time now.

A number of cleantech institutions are now calling Belgium home, including the European Wind Energy Association, European Renewable Energy Council, and the European Forum of Renewable Energy Sources.

From its prime location at the heart of European commerce, the Flanders Cleantech Association has been coordinating efforts to bring Belgium's cleantech giants together.

As part of the "Belgium Plan," the country has made a pledge that by 2020, about 15% of its energy consumption would come from renewable energy. The plan aims to achieve a rate of 11.9% green energy for heating and cooling, 20.9% for electricity, and 10.14% for transport.

Flanders Cleantech Association gives cleantech companies and organizations the resources to cooperate, flourish, and meet those goals.

They do so by offering members the following:

An overview of cleantech activity in Flanders – Cluster members are given access to Profiles of Flemish cleantech companies, accessible through a specialized search engine. Members can also access available funding and cleantech market indicators.
Company promotion and information channel – For companies active in Flanders, the FCA channel can be used as an additional channel to promote services and/or to search for potential partners.
International information, opportunities and promotion for Flemish companies – Flanders Investment and Trade will direct international opportunities and information related to cleantech through the FCA channel as well as deliver support for companies on international trading and partner search. FCA also partners with other organizations and international companies to maximally leverage already-established international partnerships and share experiences.
Technology information – FCA is embedded in the Flemish Institute of Technological Research, which has access to the latest trends in cleantech technology. It is their aim to provide background information on a number of technologies as well as provide the opportunity for companies to reach out for information about technology testing, feasibility, demonstrations, and research.
Case studies on technology implementation – In order to stimulate companies of all sectors in adopting cleantech solutions, FCS presents case studies of projects in which cleantech solutions brought economical added value or solved a crucial problem for one or a cluster of companies.
Events & networking – FCA will organize or support events related to cleantech.

These partnerships have borne fruit and reinforced Belgium's status as an eco-friendly area...

Belgium's Volvo truck plant is the world’s first CO2-free automotive plant. The Flemish company Ecover is the world’s largest manufacturer of ecological detergents and cleansing agents. Nike's Logistics Center sports six 1.5-megawatt wind turbines, making it one of Europe's largest on-site wind projects.

The cooperative also hopes to implement smart grids, starting with 30 buildings and expanding to the whole Flanders community by 2020.

Flanders Cleantech Association's work has not gone unnoticed. The group has racked up a slew of nominations for the Global Cleantech Cluster Association's Later Stage Award:

Advanced Materials: Epigan, NPSP, Proviron, Econation
Energy Efficiency: Terra-Energy
Green Buildings: Machiels Buildings Solutions, SCL Elements Inc. (Can2go), Capricorn, 7C solarparken
Solar: Astroenergy, Ducatt Enfinity, FemtoGrid, Linea Trovata, Novopolymers
Wind: Acrosoma

You can check out all of the nominees here. Winners will be announced at the EcoCity World Summit in Montreal.

Keep an eye on Green Chip Stocks for ongoing coverage.

Be well,

Jimmy Mengel

The Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster

Copenhagen is no stranger to the cleantech industry; some may even call it ground zero for renewable energy innovation.

Denmark's capital ranks among the most environmentally-friendly cities on earth, sporting an inner harbor clean enough to swim and fish in, its residents world leaders in bicycle transportation and organic food consumption.

Copenhagen is currently striving to become the world's first carbon neutral city, with an ultimate goal of being completely independent of fossil fuels by 2050.

"Denmark has been focusing on becoming energy independent for a long, long time — since the 1970's," said Simon Dreyer, head of cleantech networks for Copenhagen Capacity. "It's been a roller-coaster ride, but it's exciting to see how much it has developed since then."

Copenhagen Capacity is a member of the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster (CCC), a consortium of energy companies, research institutions, and governmental and non-governmental organizations helping to push the ambitious goal forward.

The cluster pulls together all of the relevant players, allowing a cooperative, streamlined approach to cleantech projects.

Their stated mission is to "create continuous growth for existing cleantech companies, to support and assist new cleantech companies, and to attract more foreign cleantech companies to the Capital Region."

In order to accomplish that, they have set up several goals as part of their five-year plan:

Creation of 1,000 new jobs
Attraction of 25 foreign companies to the cluster
Creation of 30 new research- and innovation collaborations between companies and research institutions, for example start-ups or joint research applications/projects
Establishment of collaborations with 15 international cleantech clusters
Creation of a unifying and self-supporting organization with a minimum of 200 members
Securing the growth and momentum of 25 entrepreneurs

CCC currently has 27 partners, including investment agencies like Copenhagen Capacity, renewable energy companies like Vestas wind power, and research organizations like the University of Copenhagen.

The organization's efforts are focused on five main areas: facilitation, matchmaking, innovation and entrepreneurship, testing and demonstration, and international outreach.

Facilitation

Each cluster partner is given access to the cluster's extensive knowledge center, which is constantly updated with the most recent cleantech studies, legislation and funding programs – what they call their “one stop shop” for cleantech research.

This allows cluster partners to effectively gain insight into any areas that pertain to their overall goal, whether it be in research, financing or policy.

Matchmaking

The CCC acts to create partnerships between cleantech sectors, effectively bridging the gap between cleantech companies and the research required to make projects a reality.

They do this in two different ways: business-to-business and research-to-business.

Cleantech companies that are involved in business-to-business networks can benefit from "spillover effects" like knowledge sharing, the use of research and access to a highly-skilled labor force.

The CCC's research-to-business matchmaking has spawned a partnership with the University of Copenhagen, matching researchers to cleantech start-up companies. Whether cleantech companies are looking for a full-time research partner for a fresh new project, or a research group to expand upon existing technologies, the research-to-business matchmaking seeks to bridge the gap between companies and research institutes.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

CCC seeks to foster innovation and push those innovations into the market as quickly as possible. Members may use the cluster's Cleantech Accelerator program to help identify customer value and provide businesses with a contact person to put the plans into action.

The cluster also seeks to overcome the gap between research and commerce, the so-called "valley of death" that stops so many promising research projects from seeing the light of day.

The CCC identifies potentially groundbreaking projects, then forges the appropriate partnerships in order to get the research into action and close that gap.

Testing and Demonstration

One of the biggest perks of the CCC is the partnership with the Risø DTU National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, one of Europe's leading sustainable energy laboratories.

The research done at Risø DTU can be displayed at the “Demonstratorium,” where companies can test and present new technologies. The Demonstratorium will focus on sustainable technologies like electric vehicles, energy storage, wind turbine components, bio-energy plants, solar cells and panels, and a number of other energy saving technologies.

The CCC is also been instrumental in the development of the Copenhagen Cleantech Park, an ambitious city development project. The goal is to host approximately 14,000 residents, 6,000 jobs and 6,000 homes in a renewable, state-of-the-art "future city."

The joint project offers a number of opportunities for cluster members. Not only does it allow for industry to develop technologies in the Risø DTU and showcase them in the state of the art Demonstratorium, but it allows for actual deployment in a large urban setting. This takes cleantech from the labs to the showroom... and right into actual practice.

”It’s all about critical mass and collaborations throughout the development and value chain. The National Laboratory, the Demonstratorium and the business park, all located at Risø and all involved in sustainable technologies, will arouse international attention and attract many relevant interested parties. It will be an excellent show window to attract new partners and customers,” notes Henrik Bindsley, Risø's acting director.

International Outreach

In 2009, the CCC created the International Cleantech Network (ICN) in order to create knowledge sharing on an international level. The INC currently has partnerships with clusters in the United States, Spain, Austria, Italy, Norway, and Singapore.

Not only does this export Copenhagen's unique cleantech community; but it also attracts international companies and investors to Denmark. It's exactly the kind of flexibility and cooperation provided by the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster that has lured companies like Better Place, a Silicon Valley-based electric vehicle provider, to Denmark.

“Better Place is a good example of a new investor that we have attracted to Denmark and that sees how Danes' readiness to test out and adopt new products and technologies creates potential in the Danish market,” noted Ole Frijs Madsen, Director of Invest in Denmark.

And as Copenhagen speeds towards its goal for carbon neutrality, we're betting that the CCC will attract plenty of new partners.

Be Well,

Jimmy Mengel

Cilantro Lovers Beware!

After a lunch of fish tacos stuffed with fresh cilantro — easily my favorite herb — I returned to my desk to a worrisome headline...

"USDA testing finds 30-plus unapproved pesticides on the herb cilantro"

Even for conventional produce, that seems like a hell of a lot of pesticide.

The results were from the USDA's Pesticide Data Program, which examines around twenty different fruits and vegetables every year.

Cilantro tested most frequently for pesticides violating federal guidelines for pesticide use (see chart, right).

This year — in addition to cilantro — the agency tackled apples, asparagus, cucumbers, grapes, green onions, organic lettuce, oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, strawberries, corn, and sweet potatoes.

But how do other herbs stack up against cilantro?

We don't know. In the twenty-year history of the USDA's testing program, this is the first time they've ever tested a fresh herb.

Of the almost 200 cilantro samples analyzed, 94% tested positive for at least one pesticide.

And as the Chicago Tribune notes, some pesticides found were well over federal limits:

The fungicide quintozene was found at levels as high as 0.3 parts per million, above the limit of 0.1 ppm set for foods such as tomato paste, and the insecticide diazanon was found at levels as high as 1 ppm, when the limits for other foods on this year's USDA list range from 0.1 to 0.75 ppm.

One insecticide found on 37 percent of the cilantro samples, the organophosphate chlorpyrifros, is approved for cilantro but, in at least one case, was three times higher than the EPA's established limit for the herb.

USDA researchers also noted that washing the produce did not remove those unauthorized pesticides.

"And if people are very, very concerned, then choosing foods that are grown organically is another option," Bill Jordan, a policy advisor to the EPA, told The Tribune.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement for organics...

Considering that only one sample of the organic cilantro tested positive for unapproved pesticides, you'd think officials could make a more robust case for organically grown food — at least in this instance.

Cilantro is near and dear to me. Even as I write this, I have a skirt steak marinating in garlic, lime and the green herb.

My cilantro comes from my backyard and it's cheap, plentiful, and pesticide-free.

Be Well,

Jimmy

*Image Courtesy of Tribune Newspapers

Food Safety Violators Face Execution

China has just issued a directive that would recommend the death penalty for those convicted of deadly food safety violations.

The Supreme People's Court ordered the most severe punishments for manufacturers of tainted food that led to fatalities. The court also strengthened punishments for government officials found guilty of taking bribes or protecting perpetrators.

"Food safety concerns the people's interests and livelihoods, social stability and the future of socialism..." the court said in a statement.

Food safety is a particularly serious issue in a nation still reeling from the melamine milk disaster of 2008, which resulted in the death of six children illness suffered by several hundred thousand people. As recently as last month, three children died and dozens more became ill after consuming milk tainted with sodium nitrate.

milk inspection in Beijing earlier this month (source: China Daily)

And those are only two examples. China's been racking up more high-profile food safety cases than gymnastic medals at the Beijing Olympics...

But the punishment doesn't seem as harsh when you take a look at some of the reasons China has given for executing citizens in the past:

smuggling rare plants
counterfeiting currency
tax fraud
grave robbing
organizing, plotting, or acting to subvert the political power of the state (an old favorite)
killing panda bears

(Now I'm no death penalty advocate, but I can't imagine having much sympathy for anyone who could murder a panda.)

So it isn't entirely surprising the Chinese would implement such a draconian punishment for food safety. But if it takes the threat of execution to keep food safe in China, where does that leave the United States?

Last year, we told you about a Union of Concerned Scientists report claiming that our food supply was “directly compromised” by the revolving door of government and big business, essentially the same situation that could get you ten years in the slammer — if you're lucky — in China.

But in the United States, these crimes are left basically unpunished.

Rarely do offenders do jail time, and punishment usually tends to be a slap on the wrist in a form of a small fine.

Some legislators have sought to stiffen the penalties for violators.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) noted companies "view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business", and they should be much harsher if they are to be effective.

Earlier this year, Leahy reintroduced the Food Safety Accountability Act, which calls for prison sentences of up to ten years for some offenders.

"Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who violate our food safety laws with the intent to mislead or defraud," the senator said in a statement introducing the bill.

“In order to protect the public, we need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail.”

Leahy's bill has not been passed.

Surely there is some middle ground between America's toothless fines and China's state sponsored execution...

What do you think is an appropriate penalty for food safety violators and those who turn a blind eye to keeping with regulation?

Be Well,

Jimmy

California Approves BPA Ban

California's State Assembly has finally passed a bill that would ban the use of Bispehenol-A (BPA) in many children's products — including bottles, sippy-cups, baby food, and formula.

The Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act “prohibit(s) the manufacture, sale, or distribution of the above products designed for children 3 and younger that contain more than 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA.”

BPA, an estrogen-mimicking chemical, has been linked to cancer, sexual dysfunction, and heart disease.

Studies have shown pregnant women and children are most susceptible to the damaging effects.

Reports from the National Institute of Health and the FDA revealed the following:

The FDA shares the perspective of the National Toxicology Program that recent studies provide reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.

The President's Cancer Panel also expressed concerns about BPA increasing cancer risk.

With such concerning evidence on the books, it's startling that this California measure is only now going into effect.

Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington have already banned the chemical from certain products used primarily by infants and children.

Earlier this year, we told you how even China had banned the use of BPA because it may “disturb human metabolism, affect babies' immune systems and even induce cancer”...

Effects like that are pretty much as serious as it gets.

Yet the chemical and beverage industries continue to push against such measures.

Just last week, Coca-Cola ignored pleas from its own shareholders to remove BPA from the lining on their cans.

“Every child from every community in our state deserves access to safe products. This is a fight worth having because big chemical money should not be allowed to trump the health of babies in California,” said Assemblymember Betsy Butler, who sponsored the bill.

The bill is now headed for the State Senate for final approval. We'll keep you updated on the progress.

Be Well,

Jimmy

The Top Ten Most Endangered Rivers

Fracking pollution has made the Susquehanna River the most endangered river in the United States, according to a report released today by American Rivers.

The Susquehanna is one of the longest rivers in America, winding through New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. It flows right over the Marcellus Shale region — ground zero for the fracking industry.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves drilling a mile or more below the earth's surface and blasting a pressurized solution of water, sand, and chemicals to fracture the rocks below and release the natural gas.

Early this year, it was revealed that fracking wastewater was being dumped into the Susquehanna without being fully treated.

This resulted in levels of radium and other radioactive materials that were 100 times as high as levels set by federal drinking water standards.

And last week, we reported that fracking was leading to "explosive" levels of methane in drinking water.

"Already, spills from trucks hauling wastewater, leaks from lined fluid holding pits, and cracked well casings have contaminated private water wells. The potential for future environmental and public health catastrophes along the Susquehanna will only increase, considering the number of new wells projected and the amount of toxic wastewater produced," the report warned.

Fracking pollution also helped put the Hoback River in Wyoming at the number seven slot.

Mining, pollution and over-development are cited for the rest of the top ten:

Susquehanna River (New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland)
Bristol Bay (Alaska)
Roanoke River (Virginia, North Carolina)
Chicago River (Illinois)
Yuba River (California)
Green River (Washington)
Hoback River (Wyoming)
Black Warrior River (Alabama)
St. Croix River (Minnesota, Wisconsin)
Ozark National Scenic Riverways (Missouri)

As a Maryland resident, I not only count on the Susquehanna for my drinking water, but also to provide fresh water to our Chesapeake Bay — the largest estuary in the United States.

Sewage treatment plants, poultry farm waste runoff, and air pollution have seriously fouled the Chesapeake's waters and decimated our famous crab and oyster populations...

We certainly don't need fracking pollution adding to the mess.

American Rivers is calling on the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to "announce a complete moratorium on water withdrawals and hydraulic fracturing until there are comprehensive regulations in place for natural gas development or they will put public health and drinking water at risk."

You can join American Rivers in requesting a moritorium here.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Fracking Linked to Flammable Drinking Water

Fracking has endured a media rollercoaster ride over the past year...

It's been the cause célèbre for natural gas advocates like T. Boone Pickens and alternative energy enthusiasts like President Obama. But the process has an environmental record that has been tarnished by tales of radioactive drinking water and flammable tap water.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process of blasting water, sand, and chemicals miles underground to extract natural gas from deposits deep underground.

Perhaps nothing hurt the practice's reputation more than the iconic scene in the Oscar-nominated documentary GasLand in which a man takes a lighter to his kitchen sink and the water suddenly bursts into flames:

Industry heads immediately began shouting down the film and its maker, Josh Fox, for using "anecdotal evidence" in order to give fracking a bad name.

They even sought to have his film barred from Oscar contention on the grounds that it was misrepresenting the truth.

“It’s unfortunate there isn’t an Oscar category for propaganda, [as] this nomination is fitting,” Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, a pro-industry group told the New York Times.

Now Fuller and friends can eat their words and wash them down with a hot cup of flaming tap water...

This week, Duke University researchers presented the first peer-reviewed study that concludes fracking produces elevated levels of methane gas in the water supply — enough to render it flammable.

The study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found a strong correlation between dangerous levels of methane in certain water supplies and their distance to shale gas extraction wells.

From the report:

We document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km) average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and... were a potential explosion hazard [emphasis editor's].

Those wells closer to natural gas wells has a substantially higher concentration of methane — an average of 17 times higher — than near inactive wells.

There is a silver lining to the results: a lack of contamination from fracking chemicals, which is a principal concern for many environmentalists.

The researchers found no evidence that the often undisclosed chemicals used in fracking had made their way into the water supply.

In Dimock, Pennsylvania — where some of the testing was done — some residents are feeling vindicated.

“We weren’t just blowing smoke. What we were talking about was the truth,” resident Ron Carter told ProPublica. “Now I’m happy that at least something helps prove out our theory.”

The researchers obtained their results by analyzing groundwater from 68 private wells in northeast Pennsylvania and Upstate New York, where fracking is most prominent. Of those, 60 were monitored for methane and higher-chain hydrocarbons.

That small sample size is one reason Energy in Depth and other pro-industry groups, perhaps unsurprisingly, are criticizing the Duke research.

"The biggest weakness is the lack of baseline data," said Energy in Depth spokesman Chris Tucker.

"Methane migrates upward from source rock over the course of geologic time — but these guys are trying to argue that it’s migrating upward almost instantaneously as a result of development. That’s just not a case you can credibly make with this sort of data set, these sort of assumptions, and this sort of methodology.”

Researchers agree that more research is needed. In fact their overall conclusion is that "greater stewardship, data, and possibly regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use."

But each time the gas companies refuse to disclose the fracturing chemicals, neglect to properly treat fracking wastewater, or ignore local complaints outright from communities in which they operate, it fractures public confidence more and more.

There needs to be more cooperation in order to make sure the undeniably valuable natural gas is extracted in the safest manner possible.

Until then, tales of exploding sinks will continue to burn the industry's credibility.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Monsanto's Stacked Deck

Last week, the head of the USDA's main research department resigned.

Roger Beachy, who took over at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture in 2009, was a prime example of the revolving door between Big-Agro and government policy.

Beachy is a major proponent of genetically modified foods, and had previously presided as president of "Monsanto's nonprofit arm" — the Danforth Plant Science Center.

While Beachy may have moved on, Monsanto's fingerprints are still all over important governmental positions.

Let's take a look at their current hand...

MICHAEL TAYLOR
Deputy Commissioner for Foods, FDA

Taylor, the current "food czar", has spent so much time in the revolving door of business and government, he's probably still dizzy.

In the seventies, Taylor represented the Department of Agriculture as an attorney. During the eighties, he represented Monsanto as a private lawyer, leading the firm's "food and drug law" practice.

In the 1990s, he headed back to the government as the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy — just in time to help the agency approve Monsanto's genetically engineered growth hormones for dairy cows, among other industry friendly policies.

As a reward, Monsanto appointed Taylor Vice President of Public Policy (aka chief lobbyist) in 1998.

In 2009, President Obama brought him back into the governmental fold as the Deputy Commissioner for Foods, where he still holds court.

TOM VILSACK
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

Vilsack has always been a darling of big-agriculture — Monsanto especially.

When he was Governor of Iowa, he was even chauffeured around in a Monsanto private jet.

He's also been a cheerleader for the bio-tech industry, receiving the Biotechnology Industry Organization's (BIO) "Governor of the Year Award" in 2001. His tenure at the USDA has reflected as much...

So far under his watch, GM alfalfa was given unrestricted approval and GM sugar beets have been deregulated.

ISLAM SIDDIQUI
Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative

Before Obama tapped him as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Siddiqui was a lobbyist for CropLife, an agriculture and biotech trade group.

CropLife lobbied on behalf of Monsanto, in addition to a who's who of environmental villains including Dow, Bayer, and DuPont.

From Civil Eats:

Behind the scenes the group in which Siddiqui has had a strong hand in leading has been lobbying to weaken regulations on biotechnology, pesticides and other agriculture chemicals both in the US and abroad, including securing exemption for American farmers in a worldwide ban of the ozone-depleting chemical methyl bromide in 2006, taking part in secret discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency to be allowed to test pesticides on children, and Siddiqui personally chided the European Union for "denying food to starving people" for using the precautionary principle in the case of GMOs.

With Siddiqui responsible for promoting our agriculture abroad, Monsanto has itself an ally.

CLARENCE THOMAS, Supreme Court Justice

Before Clarence Thomas was making headlines at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, he was quietly serving as an attorney for Monsanto, where he was employed in the late seventies.

Despite this fact, Mr. Thomas didn't see the need to recuse himself from last year's supreme court case against his former employer.

Unsurprisingly, in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, Thomas cast his lot with Monsanto...

With a stacked deck like this one, it's no wonder Monsanto has been so successful at ramming their policies through.

They've got friends in all the right places.

Be Well,

Jimmy

P.S. For more Monsanto government connections, check out the Organic Consumer Association's USDA watch.

Marijuana Production Far From Green

If you've been keeping up with “green” news, you may have read that $5 billion a year is spent on energy for marijuana cultivation in the United States...

That's a whopping 1% of the nation's total power consumption.

The energy required to produce one joint is enough to power a 100-watt light bulb for 17 hours...

These fun facts are courtesy of research published independently by Dr. Evan Mills, an energy analyst and Staff Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California.

Mills' report — Energy Up In Smoke — explains that much of that cost is due to indoor grow operations. Because of the plant's illegal status in many states, many grow operations head underground, where energy efficiency measures leave much to be desired.

The report goes on to detail how energy efficiency could be improved by 75% if legal, commercial agricultural practices were applied to marijuana growth.

From the New York Times:

Such energy savings could be substantial. In California, where about 400,000 people are licensed to grow marijuana for personal medical use or to sell to dispensaries, indoor cultivation is responsible for a whopping 8 percent of household electricity usage, costing about $3 billion yearly and producing the annual carbon emission of a million average cars.

But would legalizing the substance combat the energy issue?

It could certainly allow for more operations to move out of the basement and into legitimate commercial set-ups, where such high-energy production methods wouldn't be necessary...

Energy used in enforcement and incarceration could also be blunted by legalization, as argued in the following graphic from Lumin Interactive:

What do you think?

Is marijuana cultivation worth considering in the larger debate on offsetting our carbon footprint?

Should we start greening the green?

Be Well,

Jimmy

Researcher to Release Controversial GMO Study

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a new pathogen found in Roundup Ready crops that was linked to miscarriages and spontaneous abortions in farm animals.

At the time, I could find little information about Don Huber — the researcher who discovered the pathogen — other than he was a Purdue University researcher with decades of research in germ warfare and disease outbreaks.

We first heard from him in January, when he sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him to halt the deregulation of Roundup Ready crops until a causal relationship to this new pathogen could be ruled out...

And last month he sent another letter, this time to the European Commission, urging them to avoid any deregulation of GM crops:

We are experiencing a large number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically engineered (GMO) crops, and/or the products they were engineered to tolerate — especially those related to glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup® herbicide and generic versions of this herbicide).

We have witnessed a deterioration in the plant health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops...

At the same time, there has been an increasing frequency of previously unexplained animal (cattle, pig, horse, poultry) infertility and spontaneous abortions. These situations are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.

Alarming findings, to be sure; but how accurate are these claims?

Since his first letter leaked, he has gotten more and more publicity. The backlash has been predictably split.

Monsanto issued a statement refuting Huber's findings, claiming “independent field studies and lab tests by multiple U.S. universities and by Monsanto prior to, and in response to, these allegations do not corroborate his claims.”

Others, however, are heralding him as the Martin Luther of the anti-GMO movement.

But while Huber won't be posting his thesis on a church door, he is currently preparing his research for formal publication.

On his Call on the Land blog, Steven McFadden provides a gripping account of Huber's recent speech to Nebraskan farmers.

After beginning his speech with the biblical quote “All flesh is grass”, Huber detailed his claim that Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops were more vulnerable to disease and pathogens:

He asserted that glyphosate compromises plant defense mechanisms and thereby increases their susceptibility to disease. He said that it reduces the availability and uptake of essential nutrients, and that it increases the virulence of pathogens that attack plants. Ultimately, Huber said, all of these factors reduce crop vigor and yield

Could the plant's weakened state be related to Huber's newly discovered pathogen, also linked to fertility issues in farm animals? He was careful not to make a definitive statement, as his research is by no means finished...

“There are a lot of serious questions about the impacts of glyphosate that we need answers for in order to continue using this technology,” he told the crowd.

“I don’t believe we can ignore these questions any more if we want to ensure a safe, sustainable food supply and abundant crop production.”

We're awaiting the formal publication of Huber's findings before bestowing any sort of grandiose historical comparisons upon him, but based on his decades of work, others are already standing behind him 100%.

“No one understands the threat of biological warfare better than Don Huber and that’s what this situation with the genetically modified crops amounts to,” said Howard Vlieger, president of Verity Farms.

“That man helped negotiate bio-terrorism treaties with the Soviet Union on behalf of the U.S. government. If they trusted him then, they need to trust him now. His knowledge of the potential negative aspects of these things is unrivaled.”

Keep an eye on Green Chip Living for updates.

Be Well,

Jimmy

T. Boone Pickens: "I'm on U.S. Natural Gas, Not on OPEC"

T. Boone Pickens — the oilman turned natural gas advocate — is claiming a victory in the fight to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

The NAT GAS Act, (H.R. 1380), a Pickens pet project, would provide manufacturers and buyers of natural-gas powered vehicles with large tax credits. The bill has been introduced into the house this week with broad bipartisan support.

"You have now tossed your hat in the ring...this will be the first step to put us at the big table for energy," Pickens told earth2tech.

The bill specifically focuses on powering the nation's big rigs with natural gas. They are the biggest users of diesel fuel, so Pickens feels that is the best place to start the tax credits.

According to Pickens 280,000 rigs will be built next year, 20% of which will be natural gas powered.

"The patriotic part of this argument is going to get very big. You're gonna see 18 wheelers going down the highway that are gonna advertise on the side: 'I'm on U.S. Natural Gas, Not on OPEC'. You're gonna want that on your equipment," he mused.

Catch his entire interview below:

Monsanto Sued Again

“Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”

That ominous threat — allegedly from a Monsanto spook — was aimed at Gary Reinhart, a small country store owner.

Monsanto claimed Reinhart had planted the company's genetically modified seeds in violation of their patent. It was a surprise to Reinhart, but an all-too-familiar scene in farms across the country...

According to Vanity Fair:

Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country.

They secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities.

Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the 'seed police' and use words such as 'Gestapo' and 'Mafia' to describe their tactics"

Now in order to protect themselves from Monsanto's overreaching arm, a group of organic farmers have joined together to sue the agricultural giant.

The suit, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed by Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of over 60 family farmers, organic agriculture organizations, and seed proprietors.

The group is seeking preemptive protection from patent infringement, should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) seeds.

It is common for Monsanto's GM crops to cross pollinate neighboring organic crop fields. So essentially, farmers can be sued for crops that they never even planted.

“It seems quite perverse that a farmer contaminated by GM seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement,” Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's executive director, said in a statement.

Monsanto targets hundreds of farmers each year for possible lawsuits.

According to Sourcewatch, it's because of Monsanto's sheer financial might that the "odds are clearly stacked against the farmer":

Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments.

The lawsuit also claims that Monsanto's GM seed destroys the organic seed for the same crop.

Organic canola, for instance, became “virtually extinct as a result of contamination”...

The suit alleges that unless these protective measures are taken, the same fate could befall organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, and alfalfa — all crops that Monsanto has released GM seed for.

Monsanto is dismissing the lawsuit as a “publicity stunt”.

This is certainly not Monsanto's first legal rodeo (you can read all about their sordid past here), so we'll be watching to see how this plays out...

The farmers are indeed caught in a David and Goliath scenario, and we can only hope that this lawsuit represents a mighty stone in their collective slingshot.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Dolphin, Whale Deaths Gravely Understated in BP Spill

When I heard that over 100 dead dolphins and whales had washed ashore in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil spill, my first thought was how horrible...

But after considering that the oil spewed for what seemed like eternity, I started to become dubious.

Only 100? Surely the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history had to have been more damaging to these fragile sea creatures, no?

Unfortunately, that now appears to be the case...

A new study in Conservation Letters has shown that the true number of cetacean casualties could be over fifty times of what washed up on shore, sending the actual number skyrocketing to over 5,000.

The group studied 14 species of cetaceans in the Gulf of Mexico, and reached an estimated mortality rate by multiplying recent abundance estimates by a species specific mortality rate.

A carcass-recovery rate was reached by then dividing the mean number of carcasses washed ashore by the annual mortality estimate...

"If, for example, 101 cetacean carcasses were recovered overall, and the deaths were attributed to oiling, the average recovery rate (two percent) would translate to 5,050 carcasses, given the 101 carcasses detected," the study noted.

The researchers note that much of the cetacean population is poorly studied, and much of that population is found in the pelagic realm where they may have been exposed to oil — yet never traveled a great enough distance to wash ashore.

This makes it very difficult to estimate the actual number of deaths.

“While we did not conduct a study to estimate the actual number of deaths from the oil spill, our research reveals that the accepted figures are a grave underestimation,” lead author Dr. Rob Williams said.

“We now urge methodological development to develop appropriate multipliers so that we discover the true cost of this tragedy.”

I'm sure BP would prefer to keep the true cost of the tragedy undiscovered.

Be Well,

Jimmy

10 Worst Corporate Income Tax Avoiders

With tax day steadily approaching, us working folk are diligently preparing our taxes. But while the IRS is breathing down our necks to make sure we pay every penny of our share, there are super-profitable companies that avoid them altogether...

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont compiled this list in response to our increasing deficit emergency.

"We have a deficit problem. It has to be addressed," Sanders said, "but it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We've got to talk about shared sacrifice."

Here are the top ten corporate tax offenders:

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Scientists Go Bananas for Green Car Parts

In an attempt to make automotive plastics more eco-friendly, a team of Brazilian scientists have gone bananas...

The scientists claim that by using fibers from such fruits as bananas and pineapples, new plastics can be reinforced to make them not only more sustainable; but stronger and lighter than traditional plastics.

Study leader Alcides Leão addressed the National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society this weekend, extolling the virtues of the plants nano-cellulose fibers...

"The properties of these plastics are incredible," Leão said.

"They are light, but very strong — 30 per cent lighter and 3-to-4 times stronger. We believe that a lot of car parts, including dashboards, bumpers, and side panels, will be made of nano-sized fruit fibers in the future. For one thing, they will help reduce the weight of cars and that will improve fuel economy."

Aside from those benefits, the nano-cellulose plastics are also more resistant to damage from heat, spilled gasoline, water, and oxygen.

To create the nano-fibers, certain chemicals are added to the plants leaves and stems and placed in "a device similar to a pressure cooker".

The compound is then heated several times, resulting in a fine powder.

If successful, Leão hopes to introduce the plastics into other fields, such as lightening the load for medical equipment like artificial hips.

"So far, we're focusing on replacing automotive plastics," he explained.

"But in the future, we may be able to replace steel and aluminum automotive parts using these plant-based nanocellulose materials."

With automotive companies currently testing the nano-cellulose materials with "favorable" results, Leão predicts the reinforced plastics could be in use within the next two years.

Sounds appeeling, don't you think?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist... Any banana article requires no fewer than two horrible puns.)

Be Well,

Jimmy

Leão predicted the reinforced plastics would be in use within the next two years.

China Bans BPA; Why Hasn't the U.S.?

Both China and Malaysia have now banned the use of Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical compound that is used to make plastic products.

At a press conference, the Chinese ministry said that BPA could “disturb human metabolism, affect babies' immune systems and even induce cancer”.

Because they're smaller and slower to metabolize, children are particularly at risk.

The countries joined the entire European Union and Canada in banning the chemical from being used in baby bottles. Canada has gone a step further and labeled it a "toxic substance".

But the United States has yet to take any congressional action, despite an FDA report expressing concerns about BPA use:

Yet a provision to limit the use of BPA in children's products was squashed from last year's food safety bill...

According to the bill's sponsor, Senator Diane Feinstein, intense lobbying pressures are to blame.

The industry has been lobbying for years to avoid this type of legislation.

In one backroom meeting, pro-industry groups including the American Chemistry Council and the Grocery Manufacturers Association joined with heavyweights Coca-Cola and Del Monte to brainstorm on how to kill such legislation — not with scientific evidence, but with scare tactics.

Attendees suggested fear mongering slogans like: “Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?”

And because they couldn't find any credible scientists to take up their cause, they noted that their “holy grail” spokesperson would be a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”

Their efforts paid off when the provision was removed before passage of the food safety bill.

"I don't understand how a chemical group would oppose taking a chemical (out of products) which, at the very least, may impact the endocrine systems of infants because they want to make money on it," Feinstein said.

Lawmakers in Oregon are now trying to implement a BPA ban in baby bottles and sippy cups. If the ban passes, a full ban would go into effect next year and BPA baby products will be pulled from shelves.

"What we're trying to do is make sure we lead the way," said Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland.

"It should be done at the national level, and since it's not being done at the national level it's incumbent on us to make sure we're protecting public health."

You can urge your state to follow Oregon's example here.

Because if China — the land of melamine baby formula, poison dog food, and toys coated in lead paint — has recognized the dangers of BPA, isn't it time for the United States to do the same?

As a father to be, there is no way I'm taking the chance.

I'm not buying a baby bottle without a big "BPA FREE" sticker on it.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Mad Men Stump for High Speed Rail

"You're not going to get people to walk away from their cars overnight. We've been spending years telling them how sexy and powerful they are."

- Mad Men's Harry Crane

The ad wizards at Mad Men have unleashed their powers on high speed rail. In the following public service announcement, Pete Campbell and Harry Crane debate the merits of high speed rail, in typical Mad Men fashion...

Coral Reefs May Disappear by 2050

There is nothing quite as incredible as the world's coral reefs. Not only do they have splendorous colors, textures, and shapes; but the structures are home to over a quarter of all marine life — and over 500 million people rely on them for their livelihoods.

But a startling new report has claimed that the world's coral reefs could be completely destroyed by 2050 if we don't act to mitigate damage from overfishing, coastal development, and marine pollution.

“Reefs at Risk Revisited” from The World Resources Institute also reports that climate change is warming oceans and bleaching coral, weakening the reefs and leaving them with a barren, skeletal appearance.

“Coral reefs are harbingers of change. Like the proverbial 'canary in the coal mine', the degradation of coral reefs is a clear sign that our dangerous over reliance on fossil fuels is already changing Earth’s climate,” former Vice President Al Gore notes in his introduction to the report.

“Coral reefs are currently experiencing higher ocean temperatures and acidity than at any other time in at least the last 400,000 years. If we continue down this path, all corals will likely be threatened by mid-century.”

Right now, 60% of reefs are already threatened.

That percentage will climb to 90% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, according to the report.

Luckily, reefs have historically shown the ability to rebound from damages.

The report gives a slew of suggestions as to how we can change human behavior in order to give the reefs a fighting chance — from reducing unsustainable fishing to managing coastal development to reducing marine pollution.

They even have a section for individual action where you can learn what you can do if you either live near or visit coral reef areas.

You can read the executive summary here, and the entire report here.

Be Well,

Jimmy

Fracking Pollution Much Worse than Reported

The environmental dangers of hydraulic fracking are much worse than previously reported, according to internal documents from the EPA, state regulators, and drillers.

The New York Times has revealed that fracking wastewater contains high levels of radioactive material — far more than the water treatment plants are able to handle.

This results in radioactive wastewater discharging into rivers.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, the tainted wastewater was dumped into Monongahela River, which provides much of Pittsburgh with drinking water.

The radioactive wastewater was also dumped into the Susquehanna River, which feeds into the Chesapeake Bay, providing our drinking water here in Baltimore.

Over 100 wells in Pennsylvania reported levels of radium or other radioactive materials 100 times as high as the levels set by federal drinking water standards.

While exposure to small amounts of radioactivity isn't necessarily dangerous, the bigger concern is that contamination of drinking water could lead to increased cancer risks and other health problems.

The fracking process involves drilling a mile or more below the earth's surface and blasting a pressurized solution of water, sand, and chemicals to fracture the rocks below and release the natural gas.

Drilling companies have maintained the fracking process is safe, and the chemicals used would not do any significant harm to the environment. But the internal documents dispute those facts.

Here are some of The Time's findings:

More than 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by Pennsylvania wells over the past three years, far more than has been previously disclosed. Most of this water — enough to cover Manhattan in three inches — was sent to treatment plants not equipped to remove many of the toxic materials in drilling waste.
At least 12 sewage treatment plants in three states accepted gas industry wastewater and discharged waste that was only partly treated into rivers, lakes and streams.
Of more than 179 wells producing wastewater with high levels of radiation, at least 116 reported levels of radium or other radioactive materials 100 times as high as the levels set by federal drinking-water standards. At least 15 wells produced wastewater carrying more than 1,000 times the amount of radioactive elements considered acceptable.

Industry officials are still denying that the radiation is a health risk.

“These low levels of radioactivity pose no threat to the public or worker safety and are more a public perception issue than a real health threat,” said James E. Grey, COO of Triana Energy told The Times.

I don't know about you, but 1,000 times the acceptable amount of radioactivity seems like a pretty legit health threat to me.

You can read the New York Times piece in its entirety here.

ProPublica has also been doing a great ongoing series on fracking pollution that I'd recommend checking out.

Be Well,

Jimmy