iStock
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have just issued advice to pregnant women about eating fish.
Fatty fish have long-chain omega-3 fatty acids which are good for health.
Why You Need Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Your Diet - EcoWatch https://t.co/3VYd0amodm @livestrong @nytimeswell— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1468445424.0
But some have methylmercury, which is toxic to the developing fetus.
And all have PCBs or other organic compounds that are unlikely to promote health.
The advice? Eat 2 to 3 servings of lower-mercury fish per week for a total of 8-12 ounces.
That's fine, but which fish are low in methylmercury?
Read This if You Love Eating Fish But Worry Your Getting Too Much Mercury Exposure https://t.co/Pb6OOJ9oti @FishWiseOrg @seafoodfuture— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1458346524.0
For this, the agencies have created an reference chart that sorts 62 types of fish into three categories:
"Best Choices" (eat two to three servings a week)
"Good Choices" (eat one serving a week)
"Fish to Avoid"
Here's where things get tricky.
- Choices to avoid include, among others, Bigeye Tuna and Tilefish from the Gulf of Mexico.
- Good choices include Albacore and Yellowfin Tuna and Tilefish from the Atlantic Ocean.
Good luck telling the difference.
As I've written before (and also see this post and this one about fish politics), if you want to avoid methylmercury during pregnancy, it's best to avoid tuna. Consumer Reports advises pregnant women not to eat tuna at all.
Center for Science in the Public Interest said:
The best advice for pregnant or nursing women and parents of small children is to choose fish that are low in mercury and high in omega-3 fatty acids, like salmon and sardines. They should avoid albacore tuna altogether and consume tuna labeled as "light tuna" very sparingly—no more than two ounces per week for women and one ounce per week for kids.
And are PCBs a non-issue? Could fish politics have anything to do with this?
Here are the documents:
- FDA and EPA final advice (this updates advice proposed in June 2014).
People across New England witnessed a dramatic celestial event Sunday night.
<p>A bright meteor known as a "fireball" streaked across the sky over northern Vermont and made a loud banging noise when it entered the atmosphere, the <a href="https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2021/03/08/meteor-fireball-streaks-across-burlington-sky-sunday/4625950001/" target="_blank">Burlington Free Press reported</a>.</p><p>"I actually thought my apartment was being knocked off its foundation," one resident of Essex Junction, Vermont wrote in the comments of a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NasaMeteorWatch/posts/3884682584924272" target="_blank">NASA Meteor Watch Facebook post about the incident</a>.</p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9b885462c897c36aaa1860d343720c48"><div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/NasaMeteorWatch/posts/3884682584924272"></div></div>
<p>Eyewitness reports from Canada and the Northeastern U.S. said that the meteor flashed across the sky at around 5:38 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, NASA wrote on Facebook. From these reports, the agency has calculated that the meteor first appeared over Vermont at a height of 52 miles above Mount Mansfield State Forest. It then sped northeast at a rate of 47,000 miles per hour. It traveled for 33 miles across the upper atmosphere before burning up 33 miles above Beach Hill in Vermont's Orleans County, NASA said.</p>
<p>The agency said it was working on a more detailed trajectory based on reports and hopefully video evidence. So far, its Facebook post has more than 500 comments. In addition to Vermont, people also reported seeing it in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and the Canadian province of Québec.</p><p>"It was dusk, so the sky was a deep blue, and I saw a bright red, orange and yellow streak to the north of me," one Massachusetts eyewitness commented on the NASA post. "I thought it must have been something much bigger than a standard 'shooting star' to be so visible when not totally dark yet."</p><p>Video footage of the meteor has also emerged. <a href="https://www.wcax.com/2021/03/08/vermonters-see-hear-feel-fireball-speeding-over-state/" target="_blank">Local news station WCAX</a> recorded it from the Burlington International Airport at 5:40 p.m.</p>
<div id="3b6b2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ab95c0ebd3a900bcf71865a62fc64db5"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1368785803858636801" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">You called us from all over the state Sunday evening, reporting a loud boom and a body-rattling vibration. Well, we… https://t.co/xMVsLC2dkt</div> — Christina Guessferd (@Christina Guessferd)<a href="https://twitter.com/WCAX_Christina/statuses/1368785803858636801">1615178941.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>NASA said the meteor was a "fireball," a meteor with a magnitude of brightness greater than negative four, or the brightness of Venus in the morning or evening sky, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/meteor-fireball-over-vermont-northeast-47000-mph-1574427" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Newsweek explained</a>. A meteor, also known as a shooting star, is the name for the light we see when an asteroid or meteoroid enters Earth's atmosphere. If a meteoroid does not burn up before it lands, it is called a meteorite, <a href="https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/meteors-and-meteorites/in-depth/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">according to NASA</a>. However, much of the object burns up as it travels rapidly through the atmosphere. Usually less than five percent of an original meteoroid ever lands on Earth as a meteorite, and space rocks smaller than a football field usually disintegrate entirely. Around 48.5 tons of material from meteoroids enters the atmosphere every day, scientists estimate.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Visitors look at a Volkswagen ID.4 electric car at the Autostadt promotional facility next to the Volkswagen factory on Oct. 26, 2020 in Wolfsburg, Germany. Sean Gallup / Getty Images
By David Reichmuth
Over the last month, I've seen a number of opinion articles attacking electric vehicles (EVs). Sadly, this comes as no surprise: now that the Biden administration is introducing federal policies to accelerate the roll out of electric vehicles, we were bound to see a reaction from those that oppose reducing climate changing emissions and petroleum use.
<p>Some of the opposition will come from auto companies that want to delay the transition to electric vehicles, but others will be from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> interests or climate deniers. But it really doesn't matter why they're trying to mislead the public about electric vehicles.The important thing is that you know that this is familiar and worn-out disinformation, designed to sow doubt and confusion. Here are some of the truths about EVs, so that you can spot misleading attacks.</p>
<h3>1. EVs aren't the perfect solution for the future of transportation – they're just much, much better than gasoline vehicles.</h3><p>EVs offer us a way to have personal mobility with much fewer global warming emissions than gasoline vehicles. It's clear that the emissions from driving on electricity are lower than those from using a gasoline vehicle, even when accounting for electricity generation. Our most recent analysis shows that, across the country, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-the-climate-yes-heres-why" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">driving electric is cleaner than even the most efficient gasoline car</a>. As our electric grid continues to get cleaner (with lower coal use and more renewable energy sources), the climate benefit from electric vehicles is increasing. And, of course, because they avoid burning gasoline, electric vehicles can reduce <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/air-pollution-from-cars-trucks-and-buses-in-the-u-s-everyone-is-exposed-but-the-burdens-are-not-equally-shared" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tailpipe emissions that lead to harmful air pollution across the country</a> and put us on the path to reducing the pollution and environmental degradation that is associated with extracting and refining petroleum.</p><p>Of course, there are emissions from building every vehicle. Because of battery manufacturing, climate emissions from building electric vehicles are slightly higher those from manufacturing a gasoline vehicle. <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave#ucs-report-downloads" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">However, those increased emissions are quickly (within 6 to 16 months depending on location) made up from the savings from using electricity in place of gasoline</a>. As we increase the production of EVs, it will be important to work to minimize manufacturing emissions by reducing energy use in the extraction and preparation of battery materials and by the recycling and reuse of used batteries.</p><p>It will also be important to hold all companies to environmental and human rights standards for their manufacturing and supply chains. Auto companies and battery suppliers need to source products and raw materials in a sustainable and ethical way. Greater transparency from manufacturers would be helpful in this area. <a href="https://responsiblemining.net/2020/01/10/bmw-group-joins-the-initiative-for-responsible-mining-assurance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Some have started to disclose details on their supply chain and make commitments to improve their practices</a>. We also need to remember this goes beyond electric cars; we should be asking the same sorts of questions about our consumer-electronics companies and yes even the companies that produce and extract petroleum products and other fossil fuels.</p>
<h3>2. EV sales are a small fraction of U.S. autos now, but that's going to change.</h3><p>A common line used to argue against EVs is that they have historically made up a small fraction of the sales in the U.S. and therefore they can't possibly make a difference in our emissions. Others try to use the fact that fewer EVs were sold than gasoline cars to mean that EV's just aren't very popular.</p><p>These backwards-looking approaches could be used to dismiss any new technology, not just EVs. For example, in 2000 only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_States" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2.5% of households had broadband internet access.</a> Of course that didn't mean that home internet wasn't going to be a transformative technology. We can't look in the rear view mirror to see the road ahead for EVs.</p><p>It's obvious if we look back 10 years ago that the number and the capability of EVs was not at the level needed to replace gasoline vehicles. The good news is that in 2021, the EV landscape is vastly changed from even 5 years ago. New car buyers now have multiple options for long range EVs and can choose compelling options from more automakers than ever before. Currently, plug in cars make up about 2 percent of all sales in the U.S., but the number is higher in areas that have sought to accelerate the market via regulation and incentives. For example, in California, EV sales were over 8% of all new car sales in the state, showing the potential for higher sales elsewhere in the country with the use regulations, incentives, and customer awareness efforts.</p>
<h3>3. EVs are much more than the Tesla Model S.</h3><p>Tesla gets the lion's share of attention in the EV market, and for good reason. Tesla has led in plug-in car sales and the introduction of the Tesla Model S in 2012 changed many people's impression of what an electric car is. While some may have thought EVs were "golf carts", unstylish, or boring before, it would be hard to apply those labels to Tesla's Model S. However, Tesla's success (and press coverage) has now meant that the Tesla brand or the Model S is used synonymously with "EV."</p><p>Tesla has been a game changer in the EV market, but there are many more plug-in options now than the Tesla Model S. We're seeing many more affordable EVs on the market, though they often get much less press coverage. As more automakers introduce EV models and production volumes of plug-in vehicles increase, we are seeing even long-range battery electric cars being offered for lower than the MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) of the average new car in the U.S. (<a href="https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/average-weighted-manufacturers-suggested-retail-price-sets-record-in-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">estimated to be over $40,000 in 2019</a>). The majority of EVs sold in 2020 were models with a base model MSRP under $40,000 and only a fifth of models had a starting price over $60,000. Those who are critical of EVs would like to portray all plug-ins as high-priced luxury vehicles, but that simply isn't the case in 2021. Both here and abroad, automakers are increasing electric vehicle production, pushing down prices and making more options available to buyers.</p><p>Despite the proliferation of anti-EV arguments in the press, these arguments are old and long-debunked — dubious even when they were introduced, but downright silly after a decade of advancement in the EV market.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTc5ODMxNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1OTgyNDc3MX0.yQHMfJTy3En9xQ3OdO5rsJ7h6PwnPgcIXbMo7f-nVrk/img.jpg?width=980" id="5bca6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e73103f1249e84ef19b3241e45a9245c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1024" data-height="759" />
The majority of EVs sold in 2020 were models with a starting price (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price) under $40,000 and only a fifth of models had a starting price over $60,000.
<h3>Now is the time to accelerate the switch to EVs.</h3><p>With the impacts of climate change becoming more evident every year and the clear science on the health harms of air pollution, it's imperative that we switch from gasoline to electric vehicles as soon as possible. To make this happen, we need to use all of the policy tools available.</p><p>Federal and state incentives are vital in the short term to make buying EVs easier for more people. Battery prices (and therefore EV prices) are dropping as the scale of production ramps up, but incentives are vital now to offset the extra initial cost of EVs.</p><p>We also need to use existing greenhouse gas emissions and air quality regulations to make sure the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/press-releases-alone-arent-going-to-clean-up-cars-and-trucks" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">aspirations of automakers to go electric become reality</a>. This means setting both strong federal standards for emissions and using California's authority under the Clean Air Act to require zero emission vehicles. Because the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the California standards, there are now 11 states representing 30% of the U.S. population now moving forward with zero emission clean car standards to reduce their residents' exposure to tailpipe pollution and put their states on a path to lower carbon emissions and more states are poised to enact these standards.</p><p>Some have argued that we shouldn't rush this transition or wait until electricity and EVs are perfectly clean to start rolling out electric vehicles. There might be value in those propositions if there was not such urgency in the need to reduce emissions and clear costs for delay. Every gasoline vehicle we put on the road today means 10 to 20 years of pollution over its lifetime, and the climate-warming tailpipe pollutants accumulate in the atmosphere accumulate over time. If we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we can't afford to keep putting tailpipes on the road.</p>
<p><em>David Reichmuth is a senior engineer in the Clean Transportation Program with the Union of Concerned Scientists, focusing on oil savings and vehicle electrification.<br/></em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/three-truths-about-electric-vehicles" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A woman walks along The Embarcadero under an orange smoke-filled sky in San Francisco, California on September 9, 2020. Brittany Hosea-Small / AFP / Getty Images
Smoke from wildfires may be more harmful to public health than other sources of particulate matter air pollution, according to a new study.
<p>The research, published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21708-0.pdf" target="_blank">Nature Communications</a> on Friday, found that wildfire smoke could be up to 10 times more harmful than other sources of air pollution, such as from vehicles or industry.</p><p>"We know wildfires are going to become more extreme, due to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a>," Rosana Aguilera, study co-author and postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/06/california-wildfire-smoke-harmful-pollution-study" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "And it's important that we start to reckon with the health effects of that."</p><p>The researchers examined hospital admission records in California between 1999 and 2012. They found that admissions for respiratory problems increased from around 1.3 percent to 10 percent following an uptick in wildfire-specific air pollution. The same amount of air pollution from other sources led to a smaller admissions increase, topping out around 1.3 percent. </p><p>This isn't the first study to suggest that wildfire smoke might be more harmful than other forms of air pollution, the authors noted. Animal studies have suggested the same thing.<strong> </strong></p><p><strong></strong>Mary Prunicki, a Stanford air pollution researcher who was not part of the study, told The Guardian that evidence also suggested that wildfire smoke could exacerbate heart conditions and respiratory ailments.</p>
<p>She explained that since wildfires engulf homes and businesses, they emit fumes that contain metals, plastic and cleaning supplies. Large fires also suck smoke high into the atmosphere, where it lasts longer and combines with oxygen to become more dangerous.</p><p>"We're pretty aware of the physical costs of wildfire, in terms of firefighting costs and damage to property," Tom Corringham, a study co-author also at Scripps, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/05/973848360/study-finds-wildfire-smoke-more-harmful-to-humans-than-pollution-from-cars" target="_blank">told NPR</a>. "But there's been a lot of work that has shown that the health impacts due to wildfire smoke are on the same order of magnitude, or possibly even greater, than the direct physical cost."</p><p>The study comes as this problem is only getting worse. While particulate matter air pollution has been decreasing across most of the U.S. thanks to stricter environmental regulations, that has not been the case in wildfire-prone areas, the study found. Wildfires will likely increase as long as the climate crisis persists. In 2020, California experienced six of its largest fires on record, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-11/six-of-californias-largest-fires-in-history-are-burning-right-now" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">the Los Angeles Times reported</a>. Those fires choked the Western U.S. with smoke, in some places for weeks. An NPR analysis found that one in seven West Coast residents experienced at least one day of unhealthy air quality last year.</p><p>Unfortunately, wildfire smoke is not as easy to regulate as tailpipe or power-plant emissions. Corringham called for providing low-income households with money for air purifiers. But he also suggested a longer-term solution.</p><p>"Anything we can do today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the global climate system will have significant benefits," he told NPR.</p>
<p><br/></p>
Read More
Show Less
China's new five-year plan could allow further expansion of its coal industry. chuyu / iStock / Getty Images Plus
On Friday, China set out an economic blueprint for the next five years, which was expected to substantiate the goal set out last fall by President Xi Jinping for the country to reach net-zero emissions before 2060 and hit peak emissions by 2030.
<p>While the plan calls for a "major push" on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">clean energy</a> development, a few aspects have left <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis">climate</a> experts with questions about how exactly the world's largest emitter will hit its stated climate goals. For example, the plan did not include a ban on new <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> projects, nor did it set a "carbon cap" to define what peak emissions will be, instead setting a carbon intensity target that is the same as in the previous five-ear plan. </p>
<p>However, some are hopeful that the government will announce more detailed regulations on carbon-intensive construction and manufacturing industries later this year, and that more details will be laid out in an upcoming separate five-year plan for the energy sector. Fan Dai, director of the California-China Climate Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, told Quartz that the plan is "simply aggregating existing targets from last year." </p>
<p>Dai added that "[t]here's a lot of room for further development and ambition, especially around those targets that were missing that we hoped would be included."</p>
<p>As reported by The Guardian:</p><blockquote>China will reduce its "emissions intensity" – the amount of CO2 produced per unit of GDP – by 18% over the period 2021 to 2025, but this target is in line with previous trends, and could lead to emissions continuing to increase by 1% a year or more. Non-fossil fuel energy is targeted to make up 20% of China's energy mix, leaving plenty of room for further <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/01/world-kick-coal-habit-start-green-recovery-iea-fatih-birol" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expansion of the country's coal industry</a>.</blockquote><blockquote>Swithin Lui, of the Climate Action Tracker and NewClimate Institute, said: "[This is] underwhelming and shows little sign of a concerted switch away from a future coal lock-in. There is little sign of the change needed [to meet net zero]."<br></blockquote><blockquote>Zhang Shuwei, chief economist at Draworld Environment Research Centre, said: "As the first five-year plan after China committed to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, the 14th five-year plan was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/chinas-five-year-plan-for-economy-is-crucial-to-meeting-net-zero-by-2060" target="_blank">expected to demonstrate strong climate ambition</a>. However, the draft plan presented does not seem to meet the expectations. The international community expected China's climate policy to 'jump,' but in reality it is still crawling."</blockquote>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.vox.com/22313871/china-energy-climate-change-five-year-plan-wind-solar-coal-oil-gas?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_0DrubumD0whtbL-W2ORst7KP8movAOiMZ0TFnGuJ5squBkLONcUr8x7lF-lC7rlQrG7dXLS_ZkakLE3UbeDRRctW-jw&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Vox</a>, <a href="https://qz.com/1980664/this-is-what-chinas-new-five-year-plan-says-about-climate-change/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--8Dmc2MDASwlMLHj7urdPKD4xRZrSnNcWqbESpUz6rXiaz5O4uWQIDQZu08MryxFoODttY9l6vrdZfcX-_KN12a2VDYg&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Quartz</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/05/china-five-year-plan-emissions?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9utt1bmQIvRpc0qbODMCbIecHfocQud2ovactbRtBWynCWypUSfLDCbWexaFNNxVHM4_YrKkWq0YuvhRreg4DeMI4YQA&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/china-sets-moderate-energy-goals-climate-change-76271934?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9jYE5QFbYI1PBAF0EAyVFsP17n7nQsqL5MXE15xuN4jJsOCxVUe9ogByfz6xfzacxi_vHnMgapUXm5Ehhl4V_o3xWeUg&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">ABC</a>, <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/03/05/china-makes-no-shift-away-coal-five-year-plan-crawls-carbon-neutrality/?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8pt2s3MdAzinj7-660wCUR435gIyIppd5CBaq0JgoKgsVovG6V3v1-ksT8918Jr1dRbg_VGbPVoTEo4zeHp-7qYxaSqg&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Climate Home</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-06/china-s-top-leaders-leave-tough-climate-decisions-to-bureaucrats?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9TfW3dCe9tHJkH60aQmMkezo5SxTu0pt17YeXKnR_w9YfI0h8yXSY4UO1SNag_ZjDg-sARbmK79r-N7X1ICc5T7N9DPA&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-05/china-s-new-green-target-still-means-pumping-too-much-pollution?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9f_aDHNPTHQHFudfMhSkgaET49GREWycQGNQIC37IAeFt71FQLiTDWacxcyuAa8MD0uE4A_V7HL8tFh9EiKF2cxDWi7A&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VVXsMx6RNSZBW4q8y4r4zfLj5W1vWpFD4nX2tlN1WCR-55nxG7V3Zsc37CgH1rW1Y0B383T8V8TW2jcg5Y1lcBR2W4rXWJ_97Bgz6W8J2CPZ2XG84DW10cssS6NYvmjW8xzrqK8x2fb3W75_Y6L1yZbqcW7FMmCq90PsssW1Wfgnp4s-Tk1W50l7FK5CT1RCVCKX3m426CZhW2H-gPT4VGcL5W3ZlsFn6JFczQW9hdgd31VzYlXW1bZ7512Ck592W3TT6dB1RRl6hW79DnSS5wGhp5W3p4D0C2tsWMxW6W9LGh5bkSQhW7q11lV144xQjW8vfs1l5j6pllW5Wkjvp4FSpXtW6pK8kQ8YLzG9W2gXtn969z9HJW4x1d-f5fP8__W3hRsXc4gXZBBW623VLG5LNgJYW2Wnm-https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/china-announces-major-boost-rd-plan-lacks-ambitious-climate-targets?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=114718913&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--bfdXUmo9wi3CsZlRyDiFY8NmmwOtTQftc5rxyCqUwrzpxIQkZQxPewep5gGpvL_Kp9Kzv1eucHV2bN7B_ah4EBkrsWA&utm_content=114718913&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Science Magazine</a><br/></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, sign up for daily </em><a href="https://www.linktrack.live/hot-news-sign-up" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>, and visit their news site, </em><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>Nexus Media News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trans Canada Trail and AccessNow partnership for AccessOutdoors / Trails for All project. Mapping day on Capital Pathway in Ottawa, Ontario with Camille Bérubé. Daniel Baylis
The Great Trail in Canada is recognized as the world's longest recreational trail for hiking, biking, and cross-country skiing. Created by the Trans Canada Trail (TCT) and various partners, The Great Trail consists of a series of smaller, interconnected routes that stretch from St. John's to Vancouver and even into the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It took nearly 25 years to connect the 27,000 kilometers of greenway in ways that were safe and accessible to hikers. Now, thanks to a new partnership with the Canadian Paralympic Committee and AccessNow, the TCT is increasing accessibility throughout The Great Trail for people with disabilities.
<p>Since The Great Trail opened in 2017, the TCT has worked hard to provide as much information about the greenway to Canadians across the country. By working with the individual parks and trail groups that make up The Great Trail, they have created an experience that outdoorsmen from all over Canada can enjoy. However, until recently, little information was given for accessibility to the individual trails. This is why the <a href="https://accessnow.com/blog/new-national-partnership-focuses-on-improving-accessibility-on-the-great-trail-of-canada/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">partnership with AccessNow</a> is crucial. </p>
<p>AccessNow is a Canadian social enterprise that allows individuals to pin areas on a worldwide map that are accessible or that need accessibility improvements. By using the AccessNow map on The Great Trail, the TCT hopes to help Canadians can find barrier-free segments of the trail as well as alert the organization to areas that still have barriers. This measure aims to provide a better overall experience for hikers, bikers, and skiers visiting the Great Trail.</p><p>The AccessNow mapping initiative began with para-athlete volunteers from the <a href="https://paralympic.ca/news/new-national-partnership-focuses-improving-accessibility-great-trail-canada" target="_blank">Canadian Paralympic Committee</a>. After the announcement that the 2020 Paralympics would be <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/new-dates-announced-tokyo-2020-olympics-postponed-over-coronavirus-concerns-n1171871" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">postponed to August of 2021</a>, many para-athletes were eager to help in the project. The TCT's president and CEO <a href="https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/para-athletes-working-with-trans-canada-trail-to-improve-accessibility-across-the-network" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleanor McMahon said</a>, "With the Games postponed, (the athletes) had some time in their schedule — we were fortunate enough that they chose to spend some of their time helping us."</p><p>To McMahon and other leaders of the project, the partnership is about more than tracking access on the trail. It's about making as many voices heard, and ensuring that everyone can receive the <a href="https://thegreattrail.ca/news/canadians-covid-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">physical and mental benefits</a> of outdoor recreation. <a href="https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-national-partnership-focuses-on-improving-accessibility-on-the-great-trail-of-canada-860329231.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Maayan Ziv, founder & CEO of AccessNow</a> said, "It is an honor to work closely with the athletes involved in this project, their voices and perspectives contribute to the 'nothing about us without us' mandate that we pride ourselves on celebrating across Canada."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTc5NzI3My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NTcwNzk1NX0.LPt_XahV2Jj70Hv90h3g0aDEbe2vS8XWI_hdTNyHlcw/img.png?width=980" id="4c53f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a582bac12629e279ff8b8462d8ea194b" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1358" data-height="900" />
Trans Canada Trail and AccessNow partnership for AccessOutdoors / Trails for All project. Mapping day at Stanley Park Seawall in Vancouver, British Columbia with Richard Peter. Alexa Fernando
<p>This partnership also comes at a time when access to outdoor recreation is more important to Canadian citizens than ever. <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200527/dq200527b-eng.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Studies from the spring of 2020</a> indicate that Canadian's <a href="https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/moneytalk-mental-health-during-covid-19-1.1567633" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mental health has worsened</a> since the onset of social distancing protocols due to COVID-19. </p><p>The <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/safe-activities-during-covid19/art-20489385" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mayo Clinic</a> lists hiking, biking, and skiing as safe activities during COVID-19. Their website explains, "When you're outside, fresh air is constantly moving, dispersing these droplets. So you're less likely to breathe in enough of the respiratory droplets containing the virus that causes COVID-19 to become infected."</p><p>TCT leadership took this into consideration when embarking on the accessibility project. McMahon explains that there has never been a more important time to bring accessibility to the great outdoors: "Canadians have told us that during these difficult times, they value access to natural spaces to stay active, take care of their mental health, and socially connect with others while respecting physical distancing and public health directives. This partnership is incredibly important especially now as trails have become a lifeline for Canadians."</p><p>Together, these organizations are paving the way for better physical and mental health among all Canadians. To learn more about the TCT's mission and initiatives, check out their <a href="https://thegreattrail.ca/stories/" target="_blank">trail stories</a> and <a href="https://thegreattrail.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/TCT_2020-Donor-Impact-Report_EN_8.5x14-web.pdf" target="_blank">2020 Impact Report</a>.</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less