Greenedia.com Daily Blog Report: Al Gore awarded Nobel Peace Prize, Popular Lipsticks Contain Lead
This is a selection of today’s most notable blog articles from Greenedia.com where you will find the most extensive collection of environmental blogs, videos and podcasts on the web.
Immediacy of Climate Change key to Gore’s Award
The latest post from the Greenpeace Weblog has congratulated Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on being selected for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. While there had been much debate over who would get the award, the post was convinced that the immediacy of the climate change problem ultimately forced the Nobel Prize Committee’s hand. The post stated, “I suspect the Nobel Committee thought long and hard about the pairing, the order and the issue of climate change before making today's announcement.”
Considering that the Nobel Prize is held in such high esteem, Greenpeace Weblog declared this a benchmark for those concerned about climate change. “That one of the world's most trusted and reputable institutions came out and endorsed the work of the IPCC and Gore is a sign of how far we've come on global warming.” The post was also quick to demonstrate the importance of the climate change awareness movement by stating that “even George Bush now admits global warming is real and a threat.”
Republicans have politicized Climate Change Debate
DeSmogBlog, a popular blog focused on the politics of climate change, has also congratulated Al Gore and the IPCC on winning the Nobel Peace. However, the post observed that Gore has become something of a scapegoat for right-wing anti-environmentalists. “Al Gore - a politician who dared to address a controversial public issue outside the conventional political process - has become a lightning rod for some hyper-political criticism.” DeSmogBlog speculated that a significant amount of the political resentment stems back to Gore’s role as vice president during the Clinton Administration. “It's a shame that many Republicans agreed early on to ignore the science, reasoning simply that ‘if Al Gore's for it, then I must be against it.’”
The post blames Climate Change deniers for politicizing the environmental debate as a Democract versus Republican issue. DeSmogBlog was sure to mention the names of several high-profile Republicans who have broken ranks with their conservative brethren. “A lot of credit is owed to people like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain for getting us past that political polarization.”
Brand-name lipsticks contain lead
Several popular brands of lipstick have been found to contain trace amounts of lead according to a recent post from top environmental blog Treehugger. The post reported that “a test by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found that 61% of the 33 lipsticks that they tested contained lead.” Also, one third of the lipsticks that were tested in the study actually exceeded the FDA’s guidelines on lead content.
Brands such as L’Oreal, Christian Dior and Cover Girl were among the offending lipsticks.
The post quoted Procter & Gamble, the makers of Cover Girl and L’Oreal cosmetics, stating that the quantity of lead in their product “is hundreds of times less than the amount that (someone) would get from eating, breathing and drinking water.” The report also emphasizes that children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to lead poisoning. Treehugger’s opinion was simply “why even take the risk?”
Canada’s tar sands are a lose-lose scenario
A post from Grist, a widely-read environmental blog, says that Canada should leave the oil in the Alberta tar sands in the ground. The post declared “the tar sands are doubly dirty. On the one hand, the energy-intensive conversion of the tar sands directly generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the production of conventional oil.” Additionally, the amount of natural gas needed to power the oil sands reduces the amount of “clean burning” fuel that can be sold to consumers. Using natural has to refine oil is, in Grist’s opinion, a “lose-lose” scenario.
Canada’s tar sands are also exerting a negative influence over northern Alberta’s water supply. The post quoted Chris Nelder from Energy & Capital stating that “according to a recent joint study by the University of Toronto and the University of Alberta, the projected expansion of the tar sands projects will kill the Athabasca River, the only abundant source of water in the area.” The author is convinced that Canada’s current use of tar sands oil is just as bad as America’s dependence on coal. However, Grist was not confident that Canada would shelve the plans for Alberta’s tar sands, it closed the post by openly asking “is Canada wise enough not to fully develop the tar sands? As of today, the answer appears to be no.”
Track this or any other Green and Environmental topic of your choice in the top expert blogs on the web using “Your Blog Reports” from Greenedia.
Greenedia is your guide to the best Green social media available on the Internet. Green social media is not just about activism. It's about the economy, business and investment. It's about living, building, driving and eating green. It's about daily life and the future lives of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Please visit Greenedia.com.