whats more: hurdy gurdy postcard from Germany

a friend who was traveling sent this to me from Germany awhile back

2609. Orgelleier von César Pons

Grenoble, Ende 18. Jh.

"Gurdy organ" by César Pons

Grenoble, late 18th Century

more at

what next: hurdy gurdy postcard from Germany

As Texas Pipeline Blockade Continues, Activists Challenge First U.S. Tar Sands Strip Mine in Utah

 As a direct action blockade of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline continues in Texas, we look at what could be the first actual tar sands and oil shale strip-mining operation in the United States. Not far from Moab, Utah, the state has already leased land to a Canadian energy development company that recently changed its name to U.S. Oil Sands. The company plans to mine nearly 6,000 acres in an area of unspoiled wilderness that is also the watershed of the Colorado River, which provides water to more than 30 million people. The mine itself would be water-intensive in what is already the second-driest state in the country, and activists say chemicals used in the mine could pollute the water that is left. We’re joined by two activists working to block the project: John Weisheit, longtime conservation director of Living Rivers & Colorado Riverkeeper; and Ashley Anderson, founder and director of Before It Starts, which is leading the fight to stop tar sands drilling in Utah. [includes rush transcript]

As Texas Pipeline Blockade Continues, Activists Challenge First U.S. Tar Sands Strip Mine in Utah

"Nuclear" seismic testing threatens wildlife in California?

Nuclear seismic testing threatens wildlife in California | Greenpeace Blogs

My Greenpeace colleagues aboard our new flagship the Rainbow Warrior in the Indian Ocean shared a heartwarming experience when a frolicking group of humpback and minke whales put on quite a show. The excitement of their encounter just reverberated through their email and I can see from these photos why they were so pumped. It’s not a stretch to say these whales were happy and playful. Why wouldn’t they be as the entire Indian Ocean is a whale sanctuary where they can live in peace? What a contrast this is to other parts of the world where whales not only don’t have protections but face a myriad of direct threats from humans. One huge emerging threat to whales, dolphins and other marine wildlife is happening now in the coastal waters of California... (more)

SIGN THE PETITION

and another petition:

California Coastal Commission: Protect Whales~ Stop Seismic Testing off the Coast of Central California! (change.org)

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is posed to conduct seismic testing in a grid pattern over a large area off the Central Coast of California from Cambria to the Santa Maria River. Tests could begin as early as September 2012 and last until the end of the year. The research ship would emit blasts of very loud noise into the ocean. Streamers four or five miles long would be towed behind the vessel, which would pick up the sound waves as they penetrate several miles into the Earth’s crust and reverberate back to the surface...

and another petition:

Petition | Halt the Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project | Change.org

The goal of the seismic imaging project is to attempt to measure the three major earthquake fault lines which run along our coast. The existence of these fault lines, especially after the continuing disaster at Fukushima, Japan, call into question the advisability of maintaining the Diablo Canyon nuclear power facility, operating near Avila.

on facebook see:

Stop the Diablo Canyon Seismic Testing

and C.O.A.S.T - Citizens Opposing Acoustic Seismic Testing

Chumash Nation speaks out against seismic testing off California coast

The Chumash Nation is speaking out against the Diablo Canyon Seismic project off the Central Coast of California.

The California-based energy company Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) wants to carpet bomb approx. 580 square nautical miles of sea floor with powerful Air Cannons that will blast every 10 to 20 seconds for 42 days straight.

The Chumash warn that these 260db sonic blasts, which will travel through the water and 10 miles into the earth's crust, will devastate the local marine ecosystem and possibly destroy fragile and sensitive Sacred Chumash Cultural Sites.

PG&E itself suggests that fisherman, divers, kayakers, boaters (including our tomol paddlers), and surfers remain out of the water during the tests due to the possibility of illness and even death. PG&E's Environmental Impact Report also lists a number of animals that will be unavaoidably impacted... (more)

SEE ALSO: what next: Will the Federal Agency Charged with Protecting Whales and Dolphins Stand Up to the Navy? | Zak Smith's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Will the Federal Agency Charged with Protecting Whales and Dolphins Stand Up to the Navy? | Zak Smith's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Yesterday, the National Marine Fisheries Service – the federal agency charged with protecting whales and dolphins – announced that it received requests from the Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to training and testing activities offSouthern California, Hawaii, and the East Coast, including the Gulf of Mexico, for the five-year period starting in January 2014.  It all sounds very innocuous until you dig a little deeper and discover that the Navy is asking for authorization to take 33 million (yes, that’s not a typo:  33,000,000) whales and dolphins over the next five years, including more than 5.23 million instances of temporary hearing loss; almost 16,000 instances of permanent hearing loss; almost 9,000 lung injuries; and more than 1,800 deaths.  It’s a staggering and unprecedented amount of harm that should give any federal agency involved, be it the Navy or the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), pause.

Yet, the Navy is not pausing, apparently has no plans to go back to the drawing board, and instead continues to rely on a mitigation scheme – centered on the ability of lookouts to detect whales and dolphins and then limit the use of sonar when they get too close – that is demonstrably ineffective and inadequate.  It’s ineffective because, as the Navy admits, lookouts on Navy ships only detect about 9 percent of whales and dolphins in the best of conditions.  It’s inadequate because the Navy’s own analysis shows that some of the most severe impacts, such as permanent hearing loss, will occur well beyond the Navy’s “too close” zone.  How else then does the Navy propose that the harm from its activities can be limited?  It doesn’t.  Its analysis and application to NMFS fail to present decision makers with any alternatives or mitigation measures that would appreciably reduce the harm to whales and dolphins.

So what’s an agency like NMFS to do when the Navy – no small fry in the Executive Branch – comes calling?  Follow.  The.  Law.

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NMFS has a legal obligation to minimize the harm to whales and dolphins from the Navy’s proposed activities.  If the Navy’s application and draft Environmental Impact Statements fail to offer a path forward for minimizing harm – as they do – NMFS is required to develop alternatives and mitigation measures of its own that limit impacts to marine mammals, while still meeting the Navy’s training needs.

Comments to NMFS on the Navy’s application and request are due November 5.  NRDC will be submitting comments urging NMFS to meet its obligations under the MMPA – develop and adopt alternatives and mitigation measures that appreciably reduce the harm to whales and dolphins from the Navy’s activities.

Will the Federal Agency Charged with Protecting Whales and Dolphins Stand Up to the Navy? | Zak Smith's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Zak Smith's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC | NRDC

see also: what next: Nuclear seismic testing threatens wildlife in California | Greenpeace Blogs

Why sustainability is bad for the environment

Nan Laney

The environmental movement which started out working to sustain nature at large has ended up campaigning to sustain industrial civilisation instead, writes Paul Kingsnorth.

Paul Kingsnorth | The Drum Opinion  (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) | 2 Oct 2012

For many years, I called myself an 'environmentalist'. I don't use the word anymore, though the things that motivated me to do so are still important to me - perhaps more than they ever were.

I became an environmentalist because of a strong emotional reaction to wild places and to natural beauty. From that reaction came a feeling, which became a series of thoughts: that such things are precious for their own sake; that they are food for the human soul; that they need people to speak for them to, and defend them from, other people because they cannot speak our language and we have forgotten how to speak theirs; and because we are killing them to feed ourselves and we care about it, sometimes, but we do it anyway because we are hungry, or we have persuaded ourselves that we are.

These are not very common sentiments within the mainstream of the green movement today. Today's environmentalism is as much a victim of the contemporary cult of utility as every other aspect of our lives, from science to education. You won't hear many greens today talking about their emotional reactions to the wild world. Instead, you'll hear them promoting something called 'sustainability'.

We hear this curious, plastic word everywhere. But what does it mean? It does not mean what it ought to: defending the non-human world from the ever-expanding empire of industrial humanity. Instead, it has come to mean sustaining human civilisation at the comfort level which the world's rich people - us - feel is their right, without destroying the 'natural capital' or the 'resource base' which is needed to do so.

A strange confusion has come about. A movement which started out working to sustain nature at large, in the face of human attacks upon it, has ended up campaigning to sustain industrial civilisation instead...

more > Why sustainability is bad for the environment - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Virginia Residents Fight Back Against Nuclear Industry Effort to Lift Ban on Uranium Mining

Virginia residents are organizing against a push by the nuclear industry to lift a three-decade-long ban on uranium mining. The ban went unchallenged until recently, when the cost of uranium began to rise. Virginia residents have expressed concern about the dangers uranium mining poses to drinking water, air quality, farm products, fishing and tourism. They say allowing mining of the one uranium deposit already identified would open the door for exploration of other sites across the state. Almost all of Virginia’s major cities have passed resolutions to oppose lifting the ban. We’re joined by the former director of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality, Robert Burnley, now an environmental consultant to the statewide coalition, Keep the Ban. [includes rush transcript]

• Virginia Residents Fight Back Against Nuclear Industry Effort to Lift Ban on Uranium Mining