Removal of Cancer-Causing Chemicals in Cosmetics Gains Momentum
Revlon, one of the oldest and best known names in beauty and personal care products, has announced it will remove some toxic chemicals from its products. They include some long-chain parabens and some formaldehyde-releasing chemicals.
As public awareness grows, pressure increases on beauty products companies to make their products safer.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
The news comes against a background of heightened awareness of the dangers of chemicals used in a range of commonly used personal care products. Last month, for instance, Women's Voices for the Earth released a major study called Beauty and the Beast, revealing the health impacts on salon workers of long-term exposure to chemicals in the products they use. Last year, more than 100,000 people signed a petition by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), urging Revlon to make this move.
“We are pleased that Revlon has acted to remove these toxic ingredients,” said EWG executive director Heath White. “Long-chain parabens and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals have no place in everyday cosmetic products. We applaud Revlon for taking these important steps and hope that other companies will follow Revlon’s lead by reformulating their products to remove chemicals that have been linked to serious health problems. The move by Revlon confirms that companies can produce cosmetics products without these troubling ingredients. Today's news reflects real progress, but more reformulation and ongoing review of the science is needed.”
Long-chained parabens, used as preservatives in many cosmetics like lotions, creams and deodorants, have been in the news as endocrine disruptors with links to breast cancer and decreased fertility. Johnson & Johnson agreed to stop using them two years ago but they're still found in many cosmetics under names like propylparaben, isopropylparaben, butylparaben and isobutylparaben.
Formaldehyde is also a preservative, and formaldehyde releasers are designed to interact with water in products like shampoos, conditioners and bubble baths—including those designed for children—to unlock it. It's an allergen and a potential carcinogen, listed on labels as DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, diazolidinyl urea and quaternium-15. Johnson & Johnson has also started phasing out these chemicals.
But while companies like Johnson & Johnson and Revlon have already responded to public pressure, many others have yet to do so. The Story of Stuff Project is leading a campaign to pressure L'Oreal to remove the potentially cancer-causing ingredients as well. Its Campaign for Safe Cosmetics points out that the company is using Ovarian Cancer Awareness to market its products, which include formaldehyde releasers and other ingredients that have links to cancer.
"The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has reviewed the scientific literature on carcinogens and found a whole host of carcinogens, formaldehyde releasers and contaminants in products sold under the L’Oreal, Maybelline and Garnier brands—all owned by L’Oreal," said the organization. "Many of the chemicals L’Oreal uses have already been banned in certain countries, but the company continues to ship toxic formulas to countries with weaker regulations. There is no reason for L’Oreal to put cancer-causing chemicals in its personal beauty products when safer alternatives exist."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
3 Common Chemicals That May Cause Breast Cancer
Toxic Chemicals in Salons Linked to Adverse Health Effects, Including Cancer
Area bordering Kaxarari Indigenous territory in Labrea, Amazonas state, Brazil, in August, 2020. Christian Braga / Greenpeace
Tropical forests are guardians against runaway climate change, but their ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is wearing down. The Amazon, which accounts for more than half of the world's rainforest cover, is on the verge of turning into a carbon source.
<p><br/></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU0NjM3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MzI0NTEyNH0.LiRJxETND8w2jTlQqMhF6FG8rYLgPqjNsxnkDuH2ads/img.jpg?width=980" id="f3111" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d4fbecfe6665dc592829aa1a4c66f368" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1200" data-height="800" />
Deforested peat forest in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Rhett A. Butler / Mongabay
<p>Overall, forests remain a carbon sink, stashing away 7.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide every year, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00976-6" target="_blank">according to a recent study published</a> in <em>Nature Climate Change</em>. But in the last 20 years alone, forests in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, have turned into net emitters of carbon, thanks to the spread of plantations, raging fires, and loss of peatlands.</p><p>Human activities are producing record-breaking emissions — atmospheric carbon dioxide hit a 4-million-year high last year — and they are hacking into the planet's sturdiest defenses.</p><p>Spread across 5.5 million square kilometers (2.1 million square miles) in nine countries in South America, the Amazon is still sucking out carbon from the air — but only just.</p><p>Most of the Amazon lies in Brazil, and between 2001 and 2019 the Brazilian Amazon acted as a net <em>emitter</em> of carbon, the study found.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU0NjM4My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MDg2MTMxOH0.fD1UsYx2S2FOoYsrLnXM2dsmUOr1FYdF8smCi3OmN_s/img.png?width=980" id="43f89" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="86f62e7cc3f99bf78b5aba4b767b8e07" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1349" data-height="925" />
<p>Since Jair Bolsonaro became president at the start of 2019, Brazil has seen increased deforestation through clearing land for cattle pastures and through fires. The 2019 fire season raised concerns across the world about the health of the forests in Brazil, but deforestation has been steadily eating away into its green cover for years.</p><p>Of the three great swaths of tropical rainforest left on Earth, only those of the Congo Basin still stand strong.</p><p>Tropical forests grow quickly and absorb the most carbon of any type of forest. During photosynthesis, they use carbon dioxide to produce energy and biomass. Because trees lock away carbon dioxide, when forests are destroyed, not only is this vital function lost, but the stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTU0NjM5MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3MTU4NTQzNn0.48bs-bFfeEVUtBgE9eYPGwD-OTdv6ukOZLoq47Lc-f0/img.png?width=980" id="90dbd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0238d12f10a377952547696688fe25e1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1349" data-height="926" />
<p>Forests are considered a carbon sink when they absorb more carbon dioxide than is released through land-use changes and forest destruction.</p><p>A <u><a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2020/03/tropical-forests-may-flip-into-carbon-sources-sooner-than-feared-study-finds/" target="_blank">2020 study predicted </a></u>the Amazon would turn into a carbon source in the next 15 years.</p><p>What is especially worrying is the loss of pristine swaths of forests that have kept carbon out of the atmosphere for decades, if not centuries. Madagascar, the world's oldest island, has lost nearly 90% of its natural forests in four decades. Since the turn of the century, unlike many African countries, it has turned into a carbon source, according to the analysis.</p><p>"Unlike secondary forests or fast-rotation pine or eucalyptus plantations, harvesting in old-growth forests releases CO2 that has taken centuries to accumulate — carbon that, once lost, is irrecoverable in our lifetime," the paper's authors write.</p><p>Forests lapsing into net producers of carbon emissions is terrible news for the planet, but it is also bad news for the forests themselves. Climate change is known to contribute to intense fire seasons and prolonged droughts that can prove fatal to trees.</p>
<p>One bright spot in the analysis is that more than a quarter of greenhouse gas removal occurred in forests in protected areas. The authors cite the example of the Menkragnotí Indigenous Territory in Brazil, where forests continue to absorb emissions equal to those from 2 million cars every year — even though surrounding forests have turned into net carbon sources. The researchers say mining activities, cattle ranching, and soy cultivation are to blame.</p><p>The research also represents an advancement in carbon accounting. The conventional method is to rely on data from individual countries. The new approach combines satellite data with ground measurements and presents a more refined picture. It evens out calculations on different scales, making it possible to estimate emissions and removals for small forest patches as well as countries and continents.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2021/01/amazon-is-on-the-brink-of-turning-into-a-carbon-source-study-warns/" target="_blank">Mongabay</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Amazon Rainforest Will Collapse by 2064, New Study Predicts ... ›
- Plants Are Decades Away From Absorbing Less Carbon, Study ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
New EU rules could ban the vegan industry from even referencing anything dairy-like or using packaging associated with dairy products. sergeyryzhov / Getty Images
What's in a name? Apparently, a lot. According to the European Union (EU), plant-based, dairy alternatives commonly referred to as almond milk or vegan cheese cannot be marketed as such. New, stricter rules under consideration this week could ban the vegan products from even referencing anything dairy-like or using packaging associated with the dairy industry.
<p>In 2017, the European Court of Justice <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1308" target="_blank">ruled</a> that dairy terms, including milk, cheese, butter and yogurt, could only refer to products derived from an animal, and not plant-based alternatives. A new set of rules, known as <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0198_EN.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 171</a>, now aim to increase restrictions and make it illegal for plant-based foods to be compared to dairy products at all.</p><p>The so-called "Dairy Ban" passed a final vote in the European parliament in Oct. 2020 by a narrow 54 percent majority, <a href="https://theconversation.com/vegan-dairy-products-face-eu-ban-from-using-milk-cartons-and-yoghurt-pots-and-uk-could-be-next-153564" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> reported. This week, Amendment 171 will be considered for approval by the EU Council of Ministers and the European Commission, The Conversation added. If approved by both, the amendment will become law.</p><p>So, what exactly does Amendment 171 mean for tofu cheese, soy yogurt, vegan butter and other plant-based, dairy-alternative products steadily coming into the mainstream? The new rules would prohibit "imitation or evocation" of dairy products, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/what-is-amendment-171-and-how-could-it-affect-plant-based-foods/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Politico </a>reported. Interpreted broadly, descriptions such as "creamy," "cheese-alternative," "milk-free" and "does not contain milk" would be illegal, <a href="https://plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/food/oatly-slams-eu-over-dairy-ban/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Plant Based News</a> reported. In the extreme, the rule could even require package redesign, as milk cartons and yogurt cups are most commonly associated with dairy, The Conversation reported.</p><p>Vegan producers would also be prevented from discussing the health or environmental advantages of their plant-based products by comparing them to traditional dairy products. Because of the high carbon footprint of animal products, studies have found that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegan-climate-change-2558286917.html" target="_self">going vegan is the best thing consumers can do for the planet</a>. Indeed, in a 2019 leaked report from the United Nations, climate scientists felt that a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegetarian-climate-change-2639648388.html" target="_self">shift to vegetarian diets is necessary to save the world</a>.</p>
<p>With the proportion of vegans in the EU doubling in the last four years and up to one-third of all consumers self-identifying as "flexitarians" rather than meat-eaters, according to a <a href="https://veganz.com/blog/veganz-nutrition-study-2020/" target="_blank">Veganz survey</a>, the commercial implications of pro-dairy censorship are huge.</p><p>"Given the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>, it's irresponsible to try and prevent us from encouraging people to make the switch to plant-based and help protect the planet in the process," Cecilia McAleavey, director of public affairs and sustainable eating for Swedish oat milk brand Oatly, told <a href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/01/14/How-Oatly-Upfield-and-ProVeg-plan-to-overthrow-Amendment-171" target="_blank">Food Navigator</a>. "People are not stupid — everyone understands that this is an attempt by the dairy lobby to hinder the shift towards sustainable plant-based eating."</p><p>The dairy industry claims that Amendment 171 prevents consumer confusion, reported The Conversation. The use of dairy-related terminology on plant-based products could mislead consumers, the industry argues. Is it either dairy-based or it's not.</p><p>The European Dairy Association told Food Navigator, "Non-dairy products cannot hijack our dairy terms and the well-deserved reputation of excellence in milk and dairy."</p>
<p>The lobby noted that similar laws exist within the EU to protect the national origin of products such as "Champagne" and "Parmigiano," The Conversation reported. A 2017 <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-risk-regulation/article/abs/geographical-indications-food-fraud-and-the-fight-against-italian-sounding-products/E97B0A9C23BD8285FA047D9F8959B20F" target="_blank">Cambridge study</a> called such intentionally ambiguous language "food fraud" meant to "[induce] a false impression on the consumer" and found that such behavior had an increasing economic impact on the continent.</p><p>The vegan-alternative sector claims that its products need to be evaluated against conventional dairy products to showcase health and environmental benefits. Politico argued that a broad application of Amendment 171 could actually censor essential information for consumers suffering from dairy allergies and intolerances. Without terms like "dairy-free" and "milk-alternative," shopping could become needlessly difficult for these people, the report said.</p><p>Packaging changes could also confuse consumers, if, for example, plant-based cheese can no longer be sold as a classic block shape that indicates what it is, as well as its anticipated flavor and texture, Politico said.</p><p>In an <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CGuedRNM2aK/?utm_source=ig_embed" target="_blank">Instagram</a> response to Amendment 171, Oatly called its passage a "wacko, incomprehensible direction to take in the middle of a climate crisis." Oatly, Upfield and other plant-based brands launched a petition to overturn Amendment 171, Food Navigator reported. They argue that the ban is counter to the EU's stated goals to improve public health and environmental sustainability, Food Navigator added.</p><p>"Making it illegal to name, package and depict plant-based foods in the way we have done for over 100 years is a serious step backwards," said Upfield's Janette Fielding. "Consumers are looking for strong EU leadership on climate and environment. That means tearing down bureaucratic barriers to sustainable and healthy eating, not building them higher."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A dementia patient with her guide spends the day at an alpaca farm as therapy in the village of Krukow on April 20, 2017 near Geesthacht, Germany. Morris MacMatzen / Getty Images
Therapeutic riding as occupational therapy, dogs visiting children with learning disabilities in school or hens spending time with seniors in elderly homes – so called animal-assisted interventions are manifold.
<p>But administering treatments by professionally trained therapists and maintaining animal welfare are key, says Dr. Andrea Beetz. She is a psychologist, researcher and teacher and has worked in the field of human-animal interaction for more than 20 years. </p>
<p><strong><em>DW: In what contexts have animal assisted interventions been particularly successful or used ?</em></strong></p><p><strong>Dr. Andrea Beetz:</strong> Animals have been integrated in all kinds of education and therapy for children. Children are very open. They have a natural affinity towards animals. They're curious about them.</p><p>So you can find a lot of school-visiting dogs or animal-assisted education approaches like therapeutic riding for the disabled, for instance.</p><p>We have a lot of success because children who are often tired of being in therapy and being in special kinds of support trainings, they are motivated again to participate in these interventions.<span></span></p><p>Another group that is highly visible in the field of animal-assisted interventions are seniors. One of the earliest interventions was a visiting program with dogs in homes for the elderly.</p><p>These visits were aimed at improving wellbeing, lightening the mood, occupying them, getting their mind off their age and illnesses.</p><p>So dogs are a great distraction and they are also social catalysts. They enable and facilitate conversations between humans.</p>
<p><em><strong>DW: What do we know about the effectiveness of animal-assisted interventions?</strong></em></p><p> <strong>Dr. Beetz: </strong>During the last 10 to 15 years, there have been numerous studies that document very positive effects of animal-assisted interventions.</p><p>For instance, there are several studies documenting that animal-assisted interventions can reduce <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/53-million-germans-suffer-from-depression-each-year/a-46506088" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">depression</a> and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/psychology-what-are-anxiety-disorders/a-48390054" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anxiety</a>, they can improve mood, trust and also empathy. They reduce all kinds of stress indicators.</p><p>Blood pressure goes down, heart rate goes down. The levels of the stress hormone cortisol are reduced. And one hormone is especially interesting – the hormone oxytocin – the levels of this hormone increased.</p><p>And you have a lot of positive effects from that because it governs the whole system for calm and connectedness.</p>
<p><em><strong>DW: If one has a pet, does that offer any kind of benefits just on its own?</strong></em></p><p><strong>Dr. Beetz:</strong> I would say yes, if you have <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/covid-demand-for-dogs-and-cats-surges-in-germany/a-56318208" target="_blank">contact with animals</a> or you visit a horse every second day that's on the pasture where you go for a walk, you get some kind of interaction that can have positive effects for you.</p><p>It's not the same as a structured therapy or an educational approach. But yes, if you manage to pet the horse and both of you enjoy it, it can reduce your stress level and you can feel more connected and calm.</p><p>Studies have shown that <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/not-so-aloof-cats-capable-of-strong-bonds-with-humans/a-50562714" target="_blank">pet owners</a> actually are, on average, a bit healthier than non-pet owners. They sleep better. They have better cardiovascular parameters, like blood pressure. They have a higher survival rate after heart attacks. </p>
<p><em><strong>DW: Does that mean that any animal can be used in animal-assisted interventions?</strong></em></p><p><strong>Dr. Beetz: </strong>No. We, at the <a href="https://www.aat-isaat.org/" target="_blank">International Society for Animal-Assisted Therapy</a>, say that only certain species should be used. These species are usually domesticated species like dogs, cats, horses, cows, goats, sheep. But also llamas and alpacas are very popular. They also have a long history of being domesticated by humans.</p><p>This is important because these animals are more used to and they are less stressed by interactions with humans.</p><p>In addition to being a domesticated species, they also need to be well socialized with humans from a young age so that they are not stressed by the interaction and they actually enjoy it.</p><p>This group of animal species are also the most suitable for animal protection reasons. We also do not recommend working with snakes or other kinds of reptiles because there is a risk of salmonella infections.</p><p>So there's a lot of thought behind it. Even though you will find different examples where other species like dolphins are used, this is a wild species. But in the field we say, please keep it to domesticated animals.</p>
<p><em><strong>DW: Are there certain limitations to animal-assisted interventions?</strong></em></p><p><strong>Dr. Beetz:</strong> One exclusion criteria could be that there's a strong allergy to the species involved.</p><p>People who are immunosuppressed or on immunosuppressants due to some kind of sickness are also at higher risk.</p><p>And another reason could be that people are just afraid of certain kinds of animals. Then you really need to consider, if you're going to take the time to first work on that fear and then have the positive effects of animal-assisted interventions, or if another kind of animal-free therapy would be better.</p><p><em><a href="https://www.animalsandsociety.org/human-animal-studies/defining-human-animal-studies-an-asi-video-project/defining-zoophilia-with-andrea-beetz/" target="_blank">Dr. Andrea Beetz</a> works at the IUBH University of Applied Sciences in Germany.</em> <em>Beetz is also active on the board of the International Society for Animal-Assisted Therapy (ISAAT).</em></p><p><span></span><em>The interview was conducted by Mira Fricke for TV and has been edited for clarity. </em></p><p><em></em><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/animals-as-therapists/a-56368730" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>. </em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- 5 Surprising Ways People Are Coping During the Pandemic ... ›
- How to Evacuate With Pets During a Natural Disaster - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock" — an estimate of how close humanity is to the apocalypse — remains at 100 seconds to zero for 2021. Eva Hambach / AFP / Getty Images
By Brett Wilkins
One hundred seconds to midnight. That's how close humanity is to the apocalypse, and it's as close as the world has ever been, according to Wednesday's annual announcement from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a group that has been running its "Doomsday Clock" since the early years of the nuclear age in 1947.
<p>Although the scientists cite the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed 1.7 million people around the world and has "revealed just how unprepared and unwilling countries and the international system are to handle global emergencies properly," they acknowledge that the coronavirus does not pose an existential threat to Homo sapiens.</p><p>However, nuclear weapons and, increasingly, catastrophic global heating caused and exacerbated by human activity — the climate crisis — do. </p>
<div id="50af6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a4e6bd206bb6b37ab15f6f67cf4adfa0"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1354453612076822536" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nuclear risk is rising as arms control treaties wither and die. Here’s the world of nuclear arms, in one graphic. V… https://t.co/5OE4L5LRps</div> — Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (@Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)<a href="https://twitter.com/BulletinAtomic/statuses/1354453612076822536">1611761880.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"Accelerating nuclear programs in multiple countries moved the world into less stable and manageable territory last year," the scientists say. "Development of hypersonic glide vehicles, ballistic missile defenses, and weapons-delivery systems that can flexibly use conventional or nuclear warheads may raise the probability of miscalculation in times of tension."</p><p>"Events like the <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/06/really-terrifying-stuff-us-senate-lockdown-after-pro-trump-supporters-storm-us" target="_blank">deadly assault</a> earlier this month on the U.S. Capitol renewed legitimate concerns about national leaders who have sole control of the use of nuclear weapons," they say. "Nuclear nations, however, have ignored or undermined practical and available diplomatic and security tools for managing nuclear risks."</p><p>"By our estimation, the potential for the world to stumble into nuclear war — an ever-present danger over the last 75 years — increased in 2020," they conclude. </p>
<div id="d24e5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4f3d50928c1a6d2bfe2328ef53d918e4"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1354461702360805376" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🚨The @BulletinAtomic just updated the Doomsday Clock, and we are PERILOUSLY close to midnight.
May this be a wake… https://t.co/txNJPZPBWE</div> — CODEPINK (@CODEPINK)<a href="https://twitter.com/codepink/statuses/1354461702360805376">1611763809.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Thirty years ago, by contrast, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock to<a href="https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/past-statements/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> 17 minutes to midnight</a> as the Soviet Union collapsed and the threat of thermonuclear annihilation ebbed to its lowest level since before the United States invented the atomic bomb and waged the only nuclear war in history against Japan in 1945. That was the year that Albert Einstein — who helped develop the first nuclear weapons—and other researchers formed the Bulletin.</p><p>Once again this year, the scientists stress that governments have also "failed to sufficiently address climate change," and although "a pandemic-related economic slowdown temporarily reduced the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming," much more needs to be done to rein in planetary warming. </p><p>"Over the coming decade fossil fuel use needs to decline precipitously if the worst effects of climate change are to be avoided," they state. "Instead, fossil fuel development and production are projected to increase. Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations hit a record high in 2020, one of the two warmest years on record."</p><p>"The <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/10/stark-new-visualizations-show-how-climate-change-fueling-worsening-western-wildfires" target="_blank">massive wildfires</a> and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/16/unreal-heartbreaking-experts-highlight-climate-crisis-connection-category-5" target="_blank">catastrophic cyclones</a> of 2020 are illustrations of the major devastation that will only increase if governments do not significantly and quickly amplify their efforts to bring greenhouse gas emissions essentially to zero," they warn.</p>
<div id="22824" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f3a1bd8137b473f26c85df2a7b4e29a7"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1354457512058228741" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Governments around the world failed to take sufficient action to address the carbon dioxide emissions that cause cl… https://t.co/Xv6AkEYf7D</div> — Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (@Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)<a href="https://twitter.com/BulletinAtomic/statuses/1354457512058228741">1611762810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Another warning came in the form of the scientists' condemnation of what they call the "threat multiplier" of "false and misleading information," both online and in more traditional media.</p><p>"This wanton disregard for science and the large-scale embrace of conspiratorial nonsense — often <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/12/10/trump-inciting-domestic-terrorism" target="_blank">driven</a> by political figures and partisan media — undermined the ability of responsible national and global leaders to protect the security of their citizens," the scientists posit. "<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/11/no-evidence-support-trumps-election-fraud-claims-new-york-times-finds" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">False conspiracy theories</a> about a 'stolen' presidential election led to rioting that resulted in the death of five people and the first hostile occupation of the U.S. Capitol since 1814."</p><p>"In 2020, online lying literally killed," they write. </p>
<div id="a79f2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a19ff41c054d5b79aba92b60e288a764"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1354461561138651137" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned what the @WHO has called an “infodemic” of mis- & disinformation. Here, the desig… https://t.co/RAFb6SDTTF</div> — Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (@Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)<a href="https://twitter.com/BulletinAtomic/statuses/1354461561138651137">1611763775.0</a></blockquote></div><p>However, this year's report is not all gloom and doom. </p><p>"The election of a U.S. president who acknowledges climate change as a profound threat and supports international cooperation and science-based policy puts the world on a better footing to address global problems," the scientists assert. "For example, the United States has already <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/paris-climate-agreement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">announced</a> it is rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Biden administration has <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/21/hugely-consequential-first-move-biden-offers-extend-nuclear-start-treaty-russia" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">offered</a> to extend the New START arms control agreement with Russia for five years."</p><p>"In the context of a post-pandemic return to relative stability, more such demonstrations of renewed interest in and respect for science and multilateral cooperation could create the basis for a safer and saner world," they write.</p><p>"We continue to believe that human beings can manage the dangers posed by modern technology, even in times of crisis," the researchers conclude. "But if humanity is to avoid an existential catastrophe — one that would dwarf anything it has yet seen — national leaders must do a far better job of countering disinformation, heeding science, and cooperating to diminish global risks."</p><p>Ultimately, the scientists say, it's up to "citizens around the world" to "organize and demand — through public protests, at ballot boxes, and in other creative ways — that their governments reorder their priorities and cooperate domestically and internationally to reduce the risk of nuclear war, climate change, and other global disasters, including pandemic disease."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/27/100-seconds-midnight-doomsday-clock-reveals-humanity-closer-ever-apocalypse" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>. </em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The 13th North Atlantic right whale calf with their mother off Wassaw Island, Georgia on Jan. 19, 2010. @GeorgiaWild, under NOAA permit #20556
North Atlantic right whales are in serious trouble, but there is hope. A total of 14 new calves of the extremely endangered species have been spotted this winter between Florida and North Carolina.
<p>The 14th and latest calf of the season was spotted Thursday off of Florida's Amelia Island, <a href="https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2021/01/22/welcoming-no-14-another-right-whale-calf-sighted-this-season/" target="_blank">News4JAX reported</a>.</p><p>"What a way to start the weekend - a new right whale!" the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Southeast announced on <a href="https://twitter.com/NOAAFish_SERO/status/1352619914146807809" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<div id="9c57f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="060d50122a2b9c0df8561b1b31b1ed2a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1352619914146807809" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">What a way to start the weekend - a new right whale! Known mom "Champagne" and her calf were sighted off Amelia Isl… https://t.co/xNSbur6V3k</div> — NOAA Fish Southeast (@NOAA Fish Southeast)<a href="https://twitter.com/NOAAFish_SERO/statuses/1352619914146807809">1611324692.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Calf number 14 was born to a 12-year-old <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/whale" target="_self">whale</a> named Champagne and is her first known calf, the agency said.</p><p>The news came just two days after the 13th calf of the season was spotted off of Wassaw Island, Georgia, News4JAX reported. This baby was also born to a first-time mom who was 14 years old.</p>
<div id="8e78f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="16ed99074326abb76728f8aa46b8d501"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1352052054479482884" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">13 is lucky today! We have a new right whale calf - our 13th for the season! Mom and calf were sighted off Wassaw I… https://t.co/VjNacz4sxD</div> — NOAA Fish Southeast (@NOAA Fish Southeast)<a href="https://twitter.com/NOAAFish_SERO/statuses/1352052054479482884">1611189304.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>All of this is good news for the species, which ended 2020 on a low note. A NOAA <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/endangered-right-whale-population-2648532928.html" target="_self">report found</a> that there were no more than 366 of the animals left alive. Then, the first known calf of the season <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/north-atlantic-right-whale-calf-dead-2649042642.html" target="_self">washed up dead</a> off the North Carolina coast in November.</p><p>However, things have begun to turn around. The species has so far had its best calving season in years, <a href="https://defenders.org/newsroom/thirteenth-critically-endangered-right-whale-calf-of-season-spotted-near-georgia" target="_blank">Defenders of Wildlife noted</a> in a statement. Only 22 calves were reported between all of 2017 to 2020. The number of new calves this season is now more than half that total, and there are two months left during which scientists expect more babies will be born.</p>
<p>Despite the baby boom, conservationists noted that the species is not out of the woods. The whales have been undergoing an Unusual Mortality Event since 2017, with 32 whales dying in Canadian and U.S. waters and 14 sustaining non-survivable injuries. The leading causes of these casualties were vessel strikes and entanglements in fishing lines. In January, a right whale was seen entangled in fishing gear off the Georgia coast.</p><p>"While these births are an encouraging sign, the continued threats underscore that we still have to redouble our efforts to protect these vulnerable babies and their mothers," Defenders of Wildlife senior attorney <a href="https://defenders.org/people/jane-p-davenport" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jane Davenport</a> said in the statement.</p><p>The same week as the 13th and 14th births were announced, NOAA released a <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">report</a> finding that vessels were ignoring both suggestions and requirements to slow down in areas where right whales might be present. This has prompted conservation groups to call for more protections.</p>
<p>"NOAA agrees that more needs to be done to protect North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes," Oceana campaign director Whitney Webber said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch. "Now it's time for the federal government to act. Voluntary speed restriction zones must be made mandatory, and the current mandatory speed restriction zones must be expanded and enforced. Oceana calls on NOAA to update the shipping regulations to protect these rare whales before it's too late."</p><p>Defenders of Wildlife also acted by joining with other conservation groups Jan. 13 to <a href="https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/1_Complaint%201%2013%2021.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">sue</a> NOAA over its failure to expand slow-down zones for the whales.</p><p>"Right whales face a daily gauntlet of fishing ropes and speeding vessels, which together have caused the deaths of more than 200 right whales in the last decade alone," Davenport said in the Defenders of Wildlife statement. "We're killing right whales far faster than they can reproduce. Unless we move quickly to abate these threats, we're running out of time to save the species from extinction."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Scientists Discover New Population of Endangered Blue Whales ... ›
- Endangered Blue Whales Make 'Unprecedented' Comeback to ... ›
- Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale Calves Spotted Off Coast ... ›
- Only 366 Endangered Right Whales Are Alive: New NOAA Report ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less