The Edible Schoolyard Project Started streaming 21 minutes ago
The Edible Schoolyard Project Started streaming 21 minutes ago
ISBN 10: 0819186333 / ISBN 13: 9780819186331
Published by Madison Books, Incorporated, 1992
Hodgkin’s Disease. Most people have heard of it. Yet, very few know Thomas Hodgkin, the man, or the reason the disease was named after him. Dr. Louis Rosenfeld changes that in this searching biography of one of the most significant humanitarians of his time. His in depth, chronological history unfolds against the backdrop of the social, medical, scientific, and educational challenges that were occurring around Thomas Hodgkin in England in the nineteenth century.
Thomas Hodgkin led a life dedicated to the betterment of those around him. First and foremost a dedicated Quaker, his religious fervor ran deep and was apparent in everything he did. He actively participated in the leading social reform movements of his time. He was committed to medical practice reform and education. His opposition to slavery and the slave trade was so strong that he worked to develop settlements in Africa for freed slaves. His strong commitment to social justice for underdeveloped peoples found him fighting for American Indian’s rights when they were being threatened by the British.
Thomas Hodgkin spent his life in the relentless pursuit of equality for the underprivileged and oppressed. Despite the fact that his integrity and consistency in human rights issues were anathema to the conventional wisdom of his time, he managed to make a difference. Dr. Rosenfeld captures the true Thomas Hodgkin like no one else ever has in this extraordinary biography.
Retired Senior Colonel Zhou Bo told DW that the errant Chinese balloon was an accident, and that Washington should stop over-reacting to what was an honest mistake. The balloon which Washington said was likely gathering intelligence, has been described by Beijing as collecting “weather” data. It drifted over US airspace last week before being shot down by a US Air Force F-22. Zhou said US-China relations had too many important issues to address that shouldn’t be “overshadowed by a symbolic balloon.”
Zhou added that he was worried by the climate of “extreme competition” between the US and China, saying it could lead to conflict, especially over Taiwan and disputes over Chinese activities in the South China Sea. The retired People’s Liberation Army officer told DW’s Tim Sebastian that Beijing was remaining impartial in Russia’s war in Ukraine.
“If China took Russia’s side we are probably already in the Third World War.”
Zhou said Vladimir Putin was unlikely to emerge as a victor from the war, but Russia was too big and powerful to lose.
Speaking from Beijing, Zhou is a senior fellow of the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University.
Please let us know what you think in the comments below.
Read the transcript of this episode:
Between former Peruvian president Pedro Castillo being removed from office and Jair Bolsonaro’s far-right supporters in Brazil storming the halls of government in a January 6-style coup attempt, the pitched battle for political power in Latin American states is intensifying more with each passing day. What is driving these insurgent rightwing movements across the continent? What international forces are connecting them, and how are they learning from and feeding each other? What must the response from the left, within and beyond government, be? This week on The Marc Steiner Show, as part of our ongoing collaboration with the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), we bring you a new installment of our special series on “The Rise of the Right.” With a special focus on the latest political upheaval in Brazil and Peru, Marc speaks with Latin America-based journalists Camila Escalante and Michael Fox.
Camila Escalante is the co-founder and editor of Kawsachun News. She co-hosts the English-language weekly podcast Latin America Review on Kawsachun News and is the Latin America correspondent for PressTV. Michael Fox is a freelance multimedia journalist, filmmaker, radio reporter, and former editor of NACLA. He is the host of the podcast Brazil on Fire, a joint production of NACLA and The Real News Network.
Studio/Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Help us continue producing The Marc Steiner Show by following us and making a small donation:
Donate: https://therealnews.com/donate-yt-st Sign up for our newsletter: https://therealnews.com/nl-yt-st
Get The Marc Steiner Show updates: https://therealnews.com/up-yt-st
Noam Chomsky talks with Professor John Haas about UN Security Council Resolution 242 regarding Israel’s annexation and occupation of Palestine. Accuses Israel of starving, harassing and murdering Palestinians while US supports Israel with policy decisions. War crime probes by the International Court of Justice and more. Chomsky explains how US vetoes of resolutions that oppose their policy, as well as US military aid to Israel, have prevented a diplomatic solution. Chomsky also critiques Israel’s narrative of being a defensive and reactive force, and suggests ways to protest US policy towards Israel, such as an anti-apartheid struggle and the possibility of an international criminal court war crimes probe into the 2014 assault on Gaza.
In 1997, John Browne, MS ’81, gave a speech at Stanford on the subject of “the global environment.” What he said back then might seem uncontroversial today, but at the time, speaking as an oil industry leader (he was group chief executive officer of the UK-based BP), his remarks sent shock waves through the industry and the American Petroleum Institute that represented it.
Browne — Lord Browne of Madingley — spokeopen in new window of a “discernible human influence on the climate,” a “link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature,” and a “need for action and solutions.”
BP, he told the audience, would be taking steps to control its own emissions, fund scientific research, invest in the development of alternative fuels, and contribute to public policy debates on solutions to the problem, measures that he said went “well beyond the regulatory requirements.” This was at a time when most oil companies were lobbying against environmental regulation and questioning the science around climate change.
Today, among other roles, Browne is chairman of BeyondNetZero, a climate investing venture established in partnership with the global growth equity firm General Atlantic. BeyondNetZero invests in high-growth companies developing climate solutions in areas such as supply chain and industrial process decarbonization, energy efficiency, resource conservation, and the measurement, management, storage, and removal of greenhouse gas emissions.
Twenty-five years on, Browne reflects on his Stanford speech, on what progress has since been made on environmental sustainability, where the biggest gaps remain, and what could have been done differently. His comments have been edited for clarity and length.
I felt it was a real risk that had to be handled, and it wasn’t just me — it was the leadership of BP. So I felt very confident being part of a team that believed we needed to do something. And we realized that we had to be at the table when people were talking about our future.
Most thought it was eminently ignorable, a view that was supported by the industry’s trade associations and other powerful groups, which said, “Let’s ignore it and if we need to do something we can wait 20 years; we can kick the can down the road.” They were still lobbying against climate change and saying the science wasn’t there.
Most people were skeptical, and they tested us in a variety of ways: talking to our team and watching our actions to see if there were any inconsistencies. But eventually a lot of them came round. Environmental Defense Fund began to work with us, as did the World Wildlife Fund and, from time to time, Greenpeace.
We could not be fully consistent from the start. There was a lot to iron out inside BP in the way things worked, and we had to correct certain harmful practices. One example is the flaring of excess natural gas [which emits carbon
dioxide, other noxious gases, particulates and methane]. It took a long time to get that under control.
“There are plenty of global applications, but they need investment and they need customers ready to commit in the long-term to buy supplies of clean energy.”
I would have been much clearer about saying that we must set targets and then externally audit performance in this area on a consistent basis, because what gets measured gets done. Second, I would have been clearer about the level of investment needed. You cannot do this without significant investment. Third, we needed to engineer the solutions to get the costs down. Twenty-five years ago there was a lot to engineer. We’ve engineered quite a few of the solutions but now we need to apply them.
I’m quite hopeful — but it’s very patchy around the world and not everyone is going to be synchronized. BeyondNetZero is focused on solutions that have the potential to deliver real-world reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We have adopted a rigorous approach to measuring and reporting that is driven by data and aligned with the Science-Based Targets initiative.
It looks like Europe is doing a good job. I hope they’re not destabilized by what’s going on at the moment [in the wake of Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine], but high energy prices and lack of energy security should demand diversification, which means that there will be lots of new energy sources, including renewables left.
China is being transparent on objectives but not on measures and America is kind of between the two. But the SEC is taking a bold approach to greenwashing — a really bold approach — and they have every intention of putting in place measures that will require people to report on what they’re doing.
We would have definitely been on a path to 1.5 degrees or less, because the problem was rather smaller 25 years ago and we would have not had to retrofit so many things. We would have had new infrastructure in place that might have reduced greenhouse gas emissions already. So we would have been on a much better path, and without the amount of reinvestment we have to make today. It’s the reinvestment that’s the tough bit — taking infrastructure that is still way into its useful life and replacing it with new.
Yes, probably, because there is a limit to what you can achieve alone. There were cost savings in things like capturing more natural gas and methane, but boards have to work within a regulatory framework or they may be accused of doing things that are not in the best interests of shareholders. You have to balance it all, and regulation does give you a way of balancing it.
The world cannot abandon oil and gas in the short term. When you look at whatever energy mix there will be in the future, oil and gas will be needed for a long time. If you shut down all the oil majors, it wouldn’t make a huge difference to the world because the oil would be produced by OPEC. It would, however, make a big difference to economies in North America and Europe, and to energy security. Of course we’d all love like to have carbon-free energy everywhere and we need to push on this as hard as we can but we have to be realistic. This is a multi-decade transition.
In the developed world, it’s about planning and regulations and getting transmission systems to connect distributed pods of energy into the central grid. That may be more complicated than building the wind farm itself, as you need to get all the consents in place.
There are plenty of global applications, but they need investment and they need customers ready to commit in the long-term to buy supplies of clean energy and, for example, hydrogen.
The technology will get better and better over time — it always does — and costs will come down. We have to crack long-term storage for intermittent energy and that hasn’t happened yet. Energy storage remains a very important part of the supply side.
We also need to come back to decarbonization of fossil fuels. We can capture CO2 and lock it away forever. But we need to investigate how to do it without pumping all this CO2 down into used reservoirs.
Nuclear is a zero- or ultra-low-carbon energy source but it has issues around its reputation as being very dangerous and it has a high price tag. We can solve the second but the first we have to work through.
If we add up all the goals we’ve set, we’ll be under 2 degrees, but it does mean we have to implement it all. As an optimist, I hope we can. But as a realist, I know we have a lot to do to keep anywhere close to 1.5 degrees. I do believe that humankind will do the right thing.
as well as the cautionary tale about university “websites” on climate change at Yale, Harvard and other institutions:
And past course material:
Description I create engaging animations about sustainability, climate change, circular economy, etc. so everyone can learn & teach for free. Think it’s a good idea?! This channel is yours: Join us, subscribe, become a patron and share with people these videos can help. Videos are created by Alexandre Magnin using many years of experience drawing and working as a sustainability consultant with businesses and communities. Feedback, ideas, suggestions, questions are always welcome: https://sustainabilityillustrated.com I don’t use an animation software. I draw on Photoshop using a pen tablet (Wacom Intuos 5) and record my screen before editing in Final Cut Pro X. For customized videos for your organization, please contact me here: https://www.alexandremagnin.com/main/en/contact/