Is it Too Soon to Consider Removing Giant Pandas From the Endangered Species List?
Due to a breeding boom over the past few years, giant pandas are making a strong recovery. Some experts argue that the species should be removed from the critically endangered list—but is it too soon?
This comes as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) undertakes an official reassessment of the panda’s status. The Swiss-based organization uses a seven-point scale to gauge the risk facing animal populations.
Due to a breeding boom over the past few years, giant pandas are making a strong recovery. Photo credit: Thinkstock
Sources have reportedly told Chinese authorities that ICUN experts are considering downgrading the giant panda from “endangered” in the wild to the still concerning but slightly lower category: “high risk of endangerment.”
In the mid-90s, the population of wild pandas dropped as low as 1,000 individuals. Despite evolutionary adaptations for a carnivorous diet, giant pandas eat around 26 to 84 pounds of bamboo a day. But forest fragmentation and encroaching human populations threaten this critical food source.
Giant pandas also have a low birth rate, meaning that it can take a long time for the population to recover. And even with severe penalties in place, pressures from illegal poaching continue to pose a significant barrier to recovery.
Despite this, earnest conservation efforts may have paid off.
Since 1974 the Chinese government has surveyed giant pandas in the wild. As of 2003, it estimated that there were about 1,596 individuals. The latest survey data, which was released in 2013, showed that giant pandas had increased in number to 1,864.
It’s important to note that the 2003 data was slightly skewed because researchers used different survey methods. Therefore, the increase doesn’t necessarily reflect conservation efforts, as some of those pandas may have just been overlooked in previous counts.
Nevertheless, a debate has raged as to whether the amount of money and energy that has gone into saving the giant panda is really worth it.
Some critics have argued that we have, in part, been so invested in the panda’s survival simply because it has become an iconic symbol of China. They assert that efforts could have been channeled elsewhere to save less photogenic animals from extinction who have a better chance of longterm survival.
However, others insist that the money invested in panda conservation is worthwhile. Pandas spread seeds throughout their forest territories, meaning they serve an important function in their habitats.
Organizations like the WWF argue that because many livelihoods depend on those same forests, the pandas are integral to their ecosystem. They also point out that pandas are considered an umbrella species, meaning that their protection also aids animals like the snub-nosed monkey and certain forest antelope species, to name just a few.
Evidently, there’s significant pressure to prove that panda numbers are rebounding and that conservation efforts are succeeding.
Even so, reports of the giant panda being downgraded from “endangered” status may be premature. While the Chinese government seems keen to accept a downgrade of the panda, the IUCN has reportedly said its assessment of the giant panda has not been completed. As of now, there is no firm date for when an announcement might be made.
Panda advocates may be somewhat relieved to hear this. While the Chinese government wants to appear supportive of panda conservation, it is undeniable that the government could do more. For example, not all giant pandas live in forests that are currently protected. That means that their habitats are at risk of further fragmentation. For a species that is already notoriously skittish when it comes to breeding, this could impact population growth.
Conservationists may worry that any premature downgrading of the panda’s status will be a greenlight for the Chinese government to relax its efforts to save pandas.
The IUCN’s decision will no doubt play a part in determining what future approach is taken to save this undeniably enigmatic and beautiful animal.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Microplastics Are Killing Baby Fish, New Study Finds
Dead Whale Washes Up on Scotland Beach After Being Tangled in Fishing Net
A group of climate activists that have been cycling from the North of the country in stages to draw attention to the climate case are arriving to the Court of Justice on the day that the climate lawsuit against Shell starts in The Hague, on December 1st, 2020. Romy Arroyo Fernandez / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Julia Conley
Representing more than 17,000 claimants who support climate action, the international organization Friends of the Earth on Tuesday opened its case against fossil fuel giant Shell at The Hague by demanding that a judge order the corporation to significantly reduce its carbon emissions in the next decade.
<p>Milieudefensie, the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/01/climate-change-activists-take-energy-giant-shell-to-court-in-the-hague-over-emissions" target="_blank">says</a> Shell has broken the law in The Netherlands by knowingly standing in the way of the country's phase-out of fossil fuels. Shell says it has set a goal of cutting its emissions to net zero by 2050, but the group is demanding a more rapid reduction. </p><p>"We are relying on the Dutch courts to protect communities around the globe," tweeted Nils Mollema, a policy advisor at ActionAid, which is supporting Milieudefensie in the case. </p>
<div id="47348" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5afbc9986f5a700bcaa4f88e3046024b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1333715559301713922" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today in The Hague: Shell on trial for its role in climate catastrophe. @Shell must take responsibility and correct… https://t.co/siy20sVKxF</div> — Nils Mollema (@Nils Mollema)<a href="https://twitter.com/MollemaNils/statuses/1333715559301713922">1606817543.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The case comes five years after the Dutch government was ordered to reduce its emissions by at least 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020. Under the Paris climate agreement, the European Union has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030.</p><p>"The claimants therefore conclude that Royal Dutch Shell's corporate policy is on collision course with global climate targets," Roger Cox, a lawyer representing Milieudefensie in the civil case, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/dutch-climate-activists-take-shell-to-court-over-emissions/2020/12/01/ed68d494-33ac-11eb-9699-00d311f13d2d_story.html" target="_blank">told</a> a panel of three judges at The Hague District Court on Tuesday. </p><p>The organization has vehemently rejected Shell's defense in the case, in which the multinational corporation is suggesting that it is no more responsible for solving the climate emergency than other businesses or individuals.</p><p>"What will accelerate the energy transition is effective policy, investment in technology, and changing customer behavior," Shell <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/01/climate-change-activists-take-energy-giant-shell-to-court-in-the-hague-over-emissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> Tuesday as the first of four days of hearings began. "None of which will be achieved with this court action."</p><p>Cox noted in his opening remarks that Shell is responsible for about 1.2% of the planet's industrial fossil fuel emissions.</p><p>"The main argument of Shell is that everybody is responsible: the consumer, the state, the international community, everybody is responsible except Shell, except the biggest polluter of the Netherlands, one of the 10 biggest polluters in the world," said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, on Monday. "And we are going to change that."</p><p>The case opened a month after Shell drew outrage from climate action campaigners by <a href="https://twitter.com/Shell/status/1323184318735360001" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">posting a poll </a>on its official Twitter account, asking ordinary citizens what they plan to do to help mitigate the climate crisis. </p><p>"I'm willing to hold you accountable for lying about climate change for 30 years when you secretly knew the entire time that fossil fuels emissions would destroy our planet," U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/02/shell-oil-asked-what-people-are-willing-do-reduce-emissions-im-willing-hold-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">replied</a> at the time, denouncing the company's "audacity."</p><p>On Monday, Pols called the opening of the case at The Hague "a historic moment."</p><p>"This is actually 'the People versus Shell,' a company that has got away with greenwashing for too long," he said in statement. "This case will make it clear to everyone that more than 95% of what Shell does is causing dangerous climate change. This has to change as soon as possible."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/01/friends-earth-vs-shell-historic-moment-climate-movement-takes-big-oil-hague" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>. </em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Eat Just, Inc. announced that its cultured chicken has been approved for sale in Singapore as an ingredient in chicken bites. The company has developed other cultured chicken formats as well. Eat Just
As concern mounts over the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, Singapore has issued the world's first regulatory approval for lab-grown meat.
<p>The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has declared that the U.S.-based company <a href="https://www.ju.st/en-us" target="_blank">Eat Just</a> can sell its cultured "chicken bites" in the country, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time" target="_blank">The Guardian reported Wednesday</a>.</p><p>"I think the approval is one of the most significant milestones in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> industry in the last handful of decades," Eat Just co-founder and CEO Josh Tetrick said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "It's an open door and it's up to us and other companies to take that opportunity. My hope is this leads to a world in the next handful of years where the majority of meat doesn't require killing a single animal or tearing down a single tree."</p>
<p>Giving up on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption" target="_self">meat consumption</a> is one of the most important things an individual can do to fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a> and environmental destruction, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegan-climate-change-2558286917.html" target="_self">studies</a> have <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegan-earth-footprint-2574241439.html" target="_self">found</a>. Companies have tried to tap into this growing ecological awareness by offering meat alternatives. Plant-based meat replacements like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/beyond-meat" target="_self">Beyond Meat</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/impossible-foods" target="_self">Impossible Foods</a> are gaining traction, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55155741" target="_blank">BBC News pointed out</a>, and the market for meat alternatives could be worth about 10 percent of the global meat industry within the next decade.</p><p>However, some companies think that plant-based meat replacements will not be enough to wean meat-lovers off of steak and chicken, The Guardian pointed out. Instead, companies like Eat Just, Future Meat Technologies and the Bill Gates-backed Memphis Meats have worked to grow meat in labs, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/singapore-issues-first-regulatory-approval-for-lab-grown-meat-to-eat-just.html" target="_blank">CNBC reported</a>. They argue that their meat is also less cruel, healthier for consumers and better for the environment.</p><p>"We think that [the way] to really solve the meat problem — which is a health problem, a deforestation problem, a morality problem — is to make animal protein," Tetrick told CNBC.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDg1NzE4Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTUzMjA4N30.-5EwlKgZejlzA25BqWo0VkOuhK2_4BZ6nxbfLcrtC4M/img.jpg?width=980" id="9c1fe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="01f8f414e028394386321c455c4436f8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Eat Just's cultured chicken has been approved for sale in Singapore as an ingredient in chicken bites. Eat Just
<p>Eat Just worked to gain the approval of Singapore health regulators for about two years. To do so, they had to develop a consistent manufacturing process for their product and satisfy food safety standards for new foods.</p><p>"It was found to be safe for consumption at the intended levels of use, and was allowed to be sold in Singapore as an ingredient in Eat Just's nuggets product," the SFA ruled, as BBC News reported.</p><p>Eat Just's meat is made by putting animal stem cells into a culture that feeds the cells, and then putting the growing cells in a bioreactor, CNBC explained. Tetrick said the process was similar to making beer.</p><p>The product already has health benefits compared to conventional meat. It has a high protein content and many amino acids, but it has no antibiotics and very low amounts of microbes like salmonella.</p><p>It is also largely cruelty free. The meat cells can be taken from live animals, and they are fed with plant-derived nutrients, The Guardian explained. The Singapore lab chicken did use a growth serum from foetal bovine blood, but a plant-based serum will be used for the next round of production.</p>
<p> Lab-grown meat also uses less land and water than conventional meat. However, the process does have some environmental disadvantages. It is high-energy, and, because it is currently being done at a small scale, requires a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Once the process is scaled up, the energy costs will go down.</p><p>There are many challenges that must be overcome before cultured meat is widely available. Eat Just's product will first be offered in just one restaurant in Singapore, Tetrick told CNBC.</p><p>"We're going to start out with a single restaurant and then scale out to five, 10, 15 and then eventually into retail," Tetrick told CNBC. "The infrastructure required to do it is primarily the bioreactors, so we'll eventually be moving to 5,000, 10,000 and 20,000 liters."</p><p>It is currently costly to produce cultured meat, and the product will be the price of premium chicken. However, costs have already decreased from $50 per chicken nugget, according to BBC News. They are expected to continue to do so as production is scaled up, and Eat Just says its products will eventually be cheaper to produce than conventional meat, according to The Guardian.</p><p>Another hurdle is making meat lovers comfortable with the idea of lab-grown meat.</p><p>Still, Bruce Friedrich of the Good Food Institute called the new approval a "very big deal for the future of meat production globally."</p><p>"A new space race for the future of food is under way," he told The Guardian.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Most Meat Will Be Plant-Based or Lab-Grown in 20 Years, Analysts ... ›
- Slaughter-Free Lab Grown Steak Cast As Ethically Friendly Alternative ›
- FDA Takes First Steps to Regulating Lab-Grown Meat - EcoWatch ›
- Tyson Foods Invests in 'Clean Meat' - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Wildfires are seen burning out of control on November 30, 2020 on Fraser Island, Australia. Queensland Fire and Emergency Services / Getty Images
The world's largest sand island has been on fire for the past six weeks due to a campfire, and Australia's firefighters have yet to prevent flames from destroying the fragile ecosystem.
<p>The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_blank">wildfires</a> on <a href="https://fido.org.au/moonbi/backgrounders/49%20Fraser%20Fauna%20Backgrounder.pdf" target="_blank">Fraser Island</a>, also called by its Indigenous name K'gari, have burned almost <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/australia/australia-bushfire-fraser-island-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank">200,000 acres </a>of its unique habitat, including large sand dunes, swamps and rainforests. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-environment-july-2639073995.html?rebelltitem=1" target="_blank">Fraser Island</a> is near Brisbane on the northeastern coast, where dingos, swamp wallabies, sugar gliders and more than 60 reptile species call the island home. It was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1992.</p><p>Several tourists visiting the island had to be <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-bushfires/bushfires-threaten-tourist-areas-on-australias-fraser-island-idUSKBN28C05U" target="_blank">evacuated</a> as conditions worsened, Reuters reported.<br></p><p>"I think it's frustrating for everybody, the fact that a campfire has started this fire. Having the impact that it has had, it started in a very, very remote part of the island… really difficult to access," Queensland Fire and Emergency Services deputy commissioner Mike Wassing told CNN affiliate Nine News, according to Reuters.</p><p>Since Saturday fire crews have dropped more than 200,000 gallons of water and flame retardant on the island, Reuters added. </p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/01/catastrophic-bushfire-on-queenslands-fraser-island-threatens-ecological-disaster" target="_blank">The Guardian </a>reported that crews are mainly addressing the problem from above, focusing on key ecological areas and sites that are important to the Butchulla Aboriginal people, who have called the island home for thousands of years.</p>
<p>However, fighting sand fires is difficult, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services assistant commissioner Gary McCormack told The Guardian. He explained how water quickly drained from the sand floor, even when dropped from above. Ground conditions weren't any better due to a lack of firebreaks. </p><p>"Unfortunately the current conditions are not conducive to extinguishment," McCormack said.</p><p>The fires are approaching the Valley of Giants, a tourist attraction known for its 1,000-year-old trees. </p><p><span></span>Researcher Dr. Gabriel Conroy, a conservation biologist at the University of the Sunshine Coast whose work focuses on Fraser Island, took a student group there last week.</p><p>"A northerly wind had kicked in and it was other-worldly with ash falling down on the students," he told The Guardian. "There's a sense of panic on the island."</p>
<p>Conroy explained that traditional fire practices by the Butchulla people were suppressed more than a century ago, and European loggers altered the island's ecology. Prior to this, the Butchulla had burned smaller fires on the island for thousands of years in order to prevent more widespread ones.<br></p><p>"This is a very large and very hot fire for this island. It's a big fire and it's the wrong kind of fire," Conroy said. He added, "It's a catastrophe. Even ecosystems that are meant to burn don't bounce back from widespread hot fires. It can be beyond their capacity to bounce back."<span></span></p><p>According to <a href="Queensland's Bureau of Meteorology said the fire danger is likely to be exacerbated by strong winds and extreme heat wave conditions, which are forecast to continue in the state for the next few days." target="_blank">CNN,</a> Queensland's Bureau of Meteorology warned that an extreme heat wave and strong winds, forecast for the next couple of days, would likely worsen the fires.</p><p>The current fires may be the start of a harsh and long fire season, and are already drawing comparison to the devastating <a href="https://news.trust.org/item/20201112231540-id4yp/#:~:text=Fires%20razed%20more%20than%2011,called%20Australia's%20%22black%20summer%22." target="_blank">wildfires</a> Australia experienced in early 2020, where more than 37 million acres were destroyed, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/australia-wildfires-animals-2646814591.html" target="_blank">three billion animals killed</a>, and 33 people died.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal
22h
Health + Wellness
A plane sprays pesticide over the Wynwood neighborhood in the hope of controlling and reducing the number of mosquitos, some of which may be capable of spreading the Zika virus on Aug. 6, 2016 in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
A national nonprofit revealed Tuesday that testing commissioned by the group as well as separate analysis conducted by Massachusetts officials show samples of an aerially sprayed pesticide used by the commonwealth and at least 25 other states to control mosquito-borne illnesses contain toxic substances that critics call "forever chemicals."
<p>Officially known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">PFAS</a>), this group of man-made chemicals — including PFOA, PFOS, and GenX — earned the nickname because they do not break down in the environment and build up in the body. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a> has been linked to suppressed immune function, cancers, and other health issues.</p><p>Lawmakers and regulators at various levels of government have worked to clean up <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> contaminated by PFAS. The newly released results of pesticide testing by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) generated alarm about the effectiveness of such efforts.</p><p>"In Massachusetts, communities are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies, while at the same time, we may be showering them with PFAS from the skies and roads," PEER science policy director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/aerially-sprayed-pesticide-contains-pfas-forever-chemicals-potentially-spread" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Tuesday.</p><p>"The frightening thing is that we do not know how many insecticides, herbicides, or even disinfectants contain PFAS," added Bennett, who arranged for the testing. "PEER found patents showing chemical companies using PFAS in these products, and recent articles discuss the variety of pesticides that contain PFAS as either an active or an inert ingredient."</p>
<div id="d4091" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="64ed42ca263b7280932e8f8d4e445802"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1333816394283065344" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW: @PEERorg found that toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were sprayed on millions of acres in MA & 25 other states.… https://t.co/TcR3vCuXna</div> — Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch)<a href="https://twitter.com/foodandwater/statuses/1333816394283065344">1606841584.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The product tested initially by PEER and subsequently MADEP, once the nonprofit alerted the department of its findings, is Anvil 10+10, produced by the Illinois company Clarke.</p><p>Karen Larson, Clarke's vice president of government affairs, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/01/metro/toxic-forever-chemicals-found-pesticide-used-millions-mass-acres-when-spraying-mosquitos/" target="_blank">told</a> the Boston Globe that "when this was first brought to our attention, we conducted an internal inquiry of our manufacturing and supply chain to ensure that PFAS was not an ingredient in the production, manufacturing, or distribution of either the active or inactive ingredients of Anvil."</p><p>"No PFAS ingredients are used in the formulation of Anvil, nor in the production of any source material in Anvil. PFAS components are not added at any point in the production of Anvil," she said. Larson added that while it is unclear why the Clarke pesticide contained PFAS, the company "will continue to work closely with the EPA to conduct our own testing."</p>
<p>PEER executive director Tim Whitehouse detailed the recent testing results in a <a href="https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MA-DEP-Ltr-Anvil-11-25-20-1.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">letter</a> sent last week to MADEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg that called for halting the use of Anvil 10+10, ensuring any replacement does not contain forever chemicals, and requiring pesticide companies to comprehensively test their products for PFAS:</p><blockquote>This fall, PEER conducted several tests for PFAS of a 2.5 gallon jug of Anvil 10+10, the pesticide used in the aerial spraying programs of Massachusetts and many other states. Our tests revealed that Anvil 10+10 contains roughly 250 parts per trillion (ppt) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 260–500 ppt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a GenX replacement for PFOA. Both these results are hovering around the detection limits of the laboratory's equipment, but there is no doubt that these PFAS are in the insecticide. While PFAS may be useful when added to pesticides as surfactants, dispersants, and anti-foaming agents, it is unclear whether the PFAS found in Anvil 10+10 is an ingredient added by the manufacturer, contained in one of the ingredients supplied to Anvil's manufacturer by other companies, or whether it is a contaminant from the manufacturing/storage process. Moreover, since we were only able to test for 36 PFAS out of the 9,252 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) inventory, it is impossible to know how many other PFAS might be in Anvil 10+10.<br>[...]<br>When PEER obtained its first positive PFAS results on Anvil 10+10, we immediately contacted DEP because of the far-reaching implications. MADEP independently tested nine samples of Anvil 10+10 from five different containers, and found eight different PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. Some PFAS levels were over 700 ppt. As such, there appears to be no doubt that there are PFAS in the pesticide Massachusetts has chosen for mosquito control.</blockquote>
<p>Whitehouse noted that Massachusetts aerially sprayed 2.2 million acres with Anvil 10+10 last year and more than 200,000 acres this year. The Boston Globe explained that "most of the <a href="https://www.mass.gov/service-details/mosquito-control-and-spraying?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">spraying</a> has been done in the southeastern part of the state, where EEE, a rare but deadly mosquito-borne disease, has been most prevalent."</p><p>The EPA, which has been lambasted by lawmakers as well as environmental and public health advocates for its handling of PFAS contamination on a national scale, is working on "an analytical method" to detect the forever chemicals in pesticides and plans to conduct its own tests of Anvil 10+10, according to the newspaper.</p><p>"There are significant unanswered questions about the data currently available," Dave Deegan, a spokesperson for the federal agency's offices in New England, told the Boston Globe. "EPA will continue to work closely with and support the state on this issue. Aggressively addressing PFAS continues to be an important, active, and ongoing priority for EPA."</p>
<p>Bennett and other critics of the EPA's response to PFAS reiterated concerns about the agency in the wake of the revelations in Massachusetts.</p><p>"This PFAS fiasco shows that public trust in EPA having a full accounting of these materials and their safety is utterly misplaced," said Bennett. "Until EPA acts, states need to adopt their own safeguards and chemical disclosure requirements because they certainly cannot depend upon the diligence of EPA."</p><p>In a statement about the testing on Tuesday, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/pfas-discovered-common-pesticide-sprayed-millions-acres" target="_blank">declared</a> that "these findings shock the conscience — states likely have unknowingly contaminated communities' water with PFAS hidden in pesticides. Once again, the EPA has failed to protect the American people from harmful pollution."</p><p>Emphasizing that "we need to stop the introduction of toxic forever chemicals into the environment and our water sources to protect public health," Hauter said that "the EPA must ban all pesticides with PFAS components, designate PFAS as hazardous substances to hold polluters accountable for cleanup of contamination, and set strong enforceable standards for PFAS in our drinking water."</p><p>"The GOP-controlled Senate must step up and pass the PFAS Action Act, which passed the House in January, to regulated these toxic compounds and hold polluters accountable, and Congress must pass he WATER Act to provide the financial relief to community water providers and households with wells to remove PFAS from drinking water or find alternative sources where treatment fails," she added. "Now is the time for decisive action to protect people's health and safety."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/01/tests-reveal-toxic-forever-chemicals-aerial-pesticide-showered-over-millions-acres" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- How Will the Biden Administration Tackle 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Are Forever Chemicals Harming Ocean Life? - EcoWatch ›
- How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern plants a tree as part of Trees That Count, a project to help New Zealand make a positive impact on climate change, on June 30, 2019 in Wellington, New Zealand. Hagen Hopkins / Getty Images
The government of New Zealand declared a climate emergency on Wednesday, a symbolic step recognizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions of substantial global warming if emissions do not fall.
<p>Alongside the declaration, New Zealand announced it would require its public sector to become carbon neutral by 2025. Government agencies would need to measure, report and offset emissions.</p><p>"The public sector needs to be and will be an exemplar that sets the standard we all need to achieve by 2050," New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told parliament in Wellington.</p>
<h2>New Zealand Going Green</h2><p>"This is a declaration of science," Ardern told said, adding the move is "an acknowledgement of the next generation… of the burden they will carry if we do not take action now."New Zealand's decarbonization program is supported by a NZ$200 million ($141 million) state fund and includes a phase-out of coal, a requirement for government agencies to use electric vehicles and a green standard for public buildings, according to Radio New Zealand.</p><p>Declaring a climate emergency, however, comes without any new statutory powers or money, making the move purely symbolic.</p>
<p>Thirty-two other countries, including Japan, Canada, France and the United Kingdom, have already declared a climate emergency. Doing so indicates that governments recognize climate change as an existential threat that requires urgent action in response.</p><p>Climate activists and scientists continue to warn that not enough is being done by governments to meet the Paris Agreement target of curbing emissions to keep global temperature levels within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-declares-climate-emergency/a-55792222" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less