Antioxidants cut free radical risk

Antioxidants cut free radical risk
by Dr. Bhiku Jethalal

Despite advice from dietitians, two-thirds of all deaths in the West are due to heart disease and cancer, both linked to our 20th century lifestyles.

Many people ask about vitamins as a defence. Reports about anti-oxidant vitamins, particularly beta carotene and vitamin E, have been confusing.

Before we can understand the role of these vitamins, we need to understand the concept of free radicals - potential factors in many illnesses. Free radicals are unstable molecules, with one of their many pairs of electrons missing an electron. This free radical goes on a "search and destroy" mission, stealing an electron from a healthy molecule.

A low-fat, vegetarian diet would cause the least amount of free radical damage.
Scientific research now confirms that free radicals play a major role in the development of cancer, heart disease, aging, cataracts and impairment of the immune system. They are seen as molecular loose cannons involved in biological fireworks.

Free radicals are impossible to avoid. Even our own bodies produce them as a byproduct of normal metabolism. But a vegetarian diet is low in the oxidants - dietary fat and iron - that cause your body to produce free radicals. Animal products, especially red meat, contain the highest amount of these substances. Therefore, a low-fat, vegetarian diet would cause the least amount of free radical damage.

Our body is bombarded by millions of free radicals daily. Cooked red meat contains nitrates, which combine with by-products of protein in the meat to form hetrocyclic amines. These compounds can cause cancer. And a US National Cancer Institute report last year shows that oven-broiled, pan-fried or grilled/barbecued chicken contains much more of these carcinogens than a well-done hamburger or grilled steak.

But all is not lost. It is now well-recognized that antioxidants can neutralize free radicals.
The body makes enzymes that curtail some free radicals. The mineral selenium also has antioxidant properties. But the three main outside sources of anti-oxidants are beta carotene, vitamin C and vitamin E.

Beta carotene, a yellow-orange pigment found in plant foods, tops the list of the 400-member family known as carotenoids, the ultimate source of vitamin A.

Carotenoids can be found in most yellow-orange, dark-green leafy vegetables and fruits such as kale, romaine lettuce, beet greens, cassava, broccoli, carrots, mushrooms, pumpkins, spinach, yams, tomatoes, apricots, papaya, peaches, cantaloupe, coriander, basil and parsley.
Beta carotene requirements may rise if you smoke, consume alcohol, are regularly exposed to ultraviolet light or take the birth control pill.

Vitamin C: Recent studies have shown that vitamin C is associated with a decreased incidence of many types of cancer, especially those of the gastro-intestinal tract (mouth, throat, stomach, pancreas, colon and rectum). It has also been shown to decrease risk of breast, cervical and lung cancer.

Sources of vitamin C are citrus fruits and juices (including melons, strawberries, papaya, kiwis, mangoes, blackberries, raspberries, red and green peppers), cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and cabbage), tomatoes, sweet potatoes and leafy greens.

Vitamin E is considered "the first-line defense" against cell membrane damage due to oxidation. Sources include vegetable oils, whole grains, fortified cereals, nuts, dark leafy greens (fresh spinach and kale), mangoes and wheat germ. Because some other foods rich in vitamin E are also high in fat (such as mayonnaise, peanut butter, avocados and shellfish), I recommend avoiding them.

This article appeared in the Toronto Star, July 4, 1996

Amazing transformation

Amazing transformation
by JoAnne Schwab

While standing on a street corner or shopping at the Big Carrot and I'll hear a voice behind me say, "Is that you, JoAnne, you're looking wonderful". Thank you, I say.
"How much did you lose?"
Seventy pounds.
"How long did it take you?"
Eight months.
Thinking about this now, I realize the answer closer to the truth is somewhere between twenty and twenty-five years.

In my early teens, I started to notice that my eating habits were creating extra weight. Back then my whole family and I were junk food fanatics. The more unhealthful and sugary the food, the more we all loved it. No shredded wheat for me, hand me the sugar frosted flakes, grab me the Hersheys, no not that bag, the larger one.

From my teens till my early thirties, I stayed thin by starvation diets or by going off and bingeing. Many more days of starving then days of bingeing enabled me to keep my weight down. In my late twenties my husband and I decided to leave Maryland and move to New York. After living in New York for a short while, we saw a film on a small educational station that showed graphic scenes of a slaughterhouse. That was it. We both became vegetarians the next day. At the beginning, we remained ethical vegetarians with no concern or knowledge for our own health. Gradually, like others, through lectures, reading articles and books and becoming knowledgeable, we kept evolving step by step. After five years in New York we immigrated to Toronto and a short time after that, joined TVA. This was around 1984.

In 1986, my husband started an animal rights group, Canadian Vegans for Animal Rights. At this point I was trying, but could not stay vegan 100% of the time. I was basically a vegetarian who would not eat anything without reading every label: no preservatives, no sugar, no colouring, no white flour, and no hidden animal products, i.e. gelatin. I was perfect except for one thing, I couldn't stick to low calories and for the next fifteen years, I stayed very much overweight, eating only what I believed to be 100% healthful foods. But for some reason, I still could not stop overeating. I rationalized that I was bingeing on health food, so it wasn't so bad. I prided myself on knowing everything about what was healthful and not healthful. I should have known, since my husband produced and hosted an animal rights, environmental and health radio show for eight years, having all the leading medical doctors in the movement on his show. He arranged lectures with Dr. Klaper and others.

I used to joke to people about me being the only fat veggie they're likely to see.

When we had information tables, although I was fully knowledgeable on all the reasons why vegetarianism is healthier, I would never speak since, I wasn't a picture of health. I'd talk about the ethics, and questions of health I'd turn over to my husband or to other volunteers. I used to joke to people about me being the only fat veggie they are likely to see.

Over the next few years, reading and learning more, I evolved again and became a strict vegan. I can look back now and see it so clearly. When we gave up meat, cheese became our staple. It was from the health food store, and rennetless. When I finally became a strict vegan and gave up cheese, it seemed all the foods I liked had to have lots of OIL-again, only cold-pressed for us. It's cold pressed from the health food store, no need to measure, just pour; here, give me the bottle, don't be stingy. More oil makes it taste better. Well, here I was now, a high fat, and still overweight, vegan!

Finally a year ago, I was able to return to a healthy weight. What changed my life? It was not the knowledge that most of us eventually learned, about eating all you want as long as it's low fat. It was the new, wonderful turn of events in the food market which has made low fat eating delicious, nutritious and easy.

If people turned to low fat eating, even as little as ten years ago, they wouldn't have had anything to eat except bland, tasteless food. A few who knew and understood how fats, including oils, should be used sparingly, would have had to spend hours cooking everything from scratch. Most food companies did not consider the importance of low fat.

We are so lucky today because we have hundreds of delicious and nutritious food products to choose from. We have cookbooks and recipes from not only magazines like Vegetarian Times that always list low fat recipes (they have a separate magazine on the newsstand now called Low-fat & Fast), but also from mainstream magazines and cookbooks. Everywhere you look, food companies have come up with low fat or no fat foods that taste, as Loblaws' lower fat food line brags, "Too good to be true".

Are you a high fat veggie?
Even thin vegetarians or vegans who eat high fat foods are also at risk for heart disease, breast cancer and other diseases. I've been running a Dr. Dean Ornish support group once a week (Bloor and Yonge area).

It's a three part program:
1. low fat food discussion, the latest studies and great recipes
2. group sharing of feelings/relieving stress, support of group members
3. meditation or yoga (meditation at my location).

These groups are for people seeking prevention for heart and other diseases. If interested please leave a message for me (JoAnne Schwab) at the TVA, and I can let you know where the nearest group is.

Activity is a priority

Rozalind Gruben
Professor at the American Institute of Health Science, member of the American Society of Nutrition and Dietetics Consultants

Life is movement. If there were a mouse here on the floor and I wanted to know if it were dead or alive, I might well go up and touch it to see if it moved because, generally, the idea is that if something moves it is probably alive. The same goes for us. The less you move, the sooner you will suffer the effects of the ageing process. Some very interesting research was done on a group of people whose hearts were not working perfectly: their hearts were not beating strongly enough to pump the necessary amounts of blood around their bodies. They had reduced muscle mass, increased amounts of fat deposits in their bodies, reduced bone density, and a tendency towards problems with their insuline levels. They were becoming potentional diabetics. Their blood pressure was very high and they had balance problems.

They were not elderly: in fact they were all in their twenties. Working in a zero gravity environment like astronauts, they were losing the use of their muscles and bones. This shows that it is constantly overcoming the pull of gravity that builds up our bodies and keeps them strong. Another study done in the UK in 1992 showed that 30% of men and 50% of women over the age of 65 didn't have enough strength in their legs to get up from a chair without using their arms. The condition of our bones constantly changes during our lives, and regular activity helps keep them strong. The centre of the bone is made up of a large number of tiny holes, all joined together - this is what makes them strong. A diet containing animal proteins speeds up the process of bone acidification, with the bone calcium tending to dry out (osteoporosis). The holes widen and their walls disintegrate, the whole structure becomes vulnerable and the bones easily break. Movement, even just walking, produces shockwaves throughout the skeletal system, and the bones respond, are stimulated and grow stronger to deal with those shockwaves.

So it is that movement and sound diet can be combined to combat osteoporosis. When people already have osteoporosis, there is greater stress along the inner edge of the vertebrae, which can produce a wedge shape and partial joining together. This process is irreversible, which is why it is so important to keep the spine in good alignment.

A joint is where two bones come together. The end of the bone is encapsulated and protected by membrane which secretes a fluid. In addition there are two little cushions that stop the two bones from touching. Movement sets off the production of greater quantities of fluid, so avoiding dehydration and ensuring good operation. The sponges need to be kept engorged with fluid to mantain their sponginess. If they dried out they would disintegrate. Movement improves the muscles, and they help to keep a good position. Working against gravity and keeping active will make a tremendous difference to your health. The benefits of movement can be seen in all of the the cardiac and respiratory apparatus - the blood flows more freely through the capillaries and it brings higher haemoglobin levels and more oxygen to the whole body, and the veins keep their elasticity.

When your heart beats, it pumps blood around your body. The heart needs oxygen, exercise reduces the possibility of an heart attack, blood pressure and colesterol level normalise. When you move vigorously, a greater amount of blood is flushing through your blood vessels, keeping them clean and maintaining their elasticity, with reduced likelihood of aneurisms. If you are stressed, your body prepares for fight or flight by pouring fats into the blood, and uses the extra sugar in the blood to help prevent diabetes. The lymphatic system is the body's cleaning system, and relies on your muscle movement to keep it flowing around: the less you move, the more toxic you become.

The way to stay efficient is walking and bending. Being a vegetarian is not the answer to everything, but the combination of a non-sedentary lifestyle and a vegetarian diet certainly increases the potential for planetary health.

- translations by Hugh Rees, Milan - commissioned by Associazione Vegetariana Italiana (AVI)

A Senior's Guide To Good Nutrition

A Senior's Guide To Good Nutrition
by Suzanne Havala, M.S., R.D.

Introduction to Diet and Aging
Relatively little is known about how the nutritional needs of older people differ from those who are younger. Although many people enjoy a generally healthy and vital old age, age-related health problems do increase with advancing years and often have an effect on eating habits.

The science of gerontology, or the study of normal aging, is still quite new, and science is giving us new insights into aspects of aging that in the past have been accepted as "normal." While there is a similar pattern of changes that takes place among all humans as they age, these changes can occur at different rates in different individuals. We do not know how much of this difference is due to genetic make-up, and how much is due to lifestyle factors such as diet.

There is abundant evidence to show that an optimal level of nutrition can extend the lifespan and improve the quality of life. A large body of research examining the health of vegetarians, who typically consume a diet that is lower in calories, saturated fat, and protein, and higher in fiber and phytochemicals than nonvegetarians, shows that vegetarians suffer from less heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some forms of cancer. Vegetarians also tend to live longer than nonvegetarians.

Good eating habits throughout life can help to promote physical and mental well-being. For older people, eating right can help to minimize the symptoms of age-related changes that, for some, can cause discomfort or inconvenience. Although the aging process affects some people differently from others, everyone can benefit from eating a well-planned vegetarian diet.
Do Seniors Have Special Nutritional Needs?

Very little is known about how the aging process affects the body's ability to digest, absorb, and retain nutrients such as protein, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, little is known about how the nutritional needs of older people differ from those of younger adults. Recommended nutrient intakes for seniors are currently extrapolated from those of younger adults.

One point that is generally agreed upon, however, is that older people tend to take in less energy, or calories, than younger people. This may be due, in part, to a natural decline in the rate of metabolism as people age. It may also reflect a decrease in physical activity. If the total intake of food decreases, it follows that intakes of protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, and minerals also decrease. If calorie intake is too low, then intakes of necessary nutrients may also be low.

Many other factors can affect the nutritional needs of older people and how successfully they meet those needs, including their access to food. For instance, some of the changes that take place as people age can affect the kinds of foods they can tolerate, and some can affect their ability to shop for or prepare food. As people age, problems such as high blood pressure or diabetes become more common, necessitating certain dietary modifications. Digestive system problems become more common, and some people may have trouble chewing or swallowing.

Generally, current dietary recommendations for adults also apply to older people. These are summarized in the following chart:
1. Limit:
· sweets
· regular coffee and tea
· greasy or fatty foods
· alcohol
· oil, margarine, and "junk" foods
· other added fat
· salt
2. Eat plenty of:
· fruits
· whole grain breads and cereals
· vegetables
3. Drink plenty of fluids, especially water

Who Should Be Concerned About Their Diet?
Young or old, it pays to eat well and under stand some nutrition basics. For starters, since food intake usually declines with age, it may be increasingly important for older people to make sure that what they do eat is nutritious. There may be less room in the diet for sweets and other "empty calorie" foods, which provide little in the way of nutrition in exchange for the calories they contribute to the diet. Eat fewer snack chips and commercially made cakes and cookies, and do your best to limit soft drinks, candy, and alcohol.

A sensible program of exercise, such as walking, may also be wise. People who are physically active have an easier time controlling their weight while still taking in more calories than those who are sedentary. The higher the calorie intake, the more likely a person is to obtain all the nutrients he or she needs.

A simple way to assess your own diet is to keep a written log or diary of everything that is eaten over a period of a few days to two weeks. Include some details about how foods were prepared, and be sure to make a note about portion sizes. Then compare the results to the general guidelines above. Write down ideas for improvement in areas that need some attention.

Should I Take Supplements?
With few exceptions, vitamin and mineral supplements are rarely necessary for people who eat a varied diet and enough food to meet their energy needs. In fact, taking large doses of some vitamins and minerals may cause imbalances in body stores of others, and some are toxic at high levels. Your best bet is to get the nutrients you need from whole foods, without the use of a supplement, unless otherwise directed by your dietitian or physician.

How Can My Diet Help Me?
Digestive system problems are the most frequent source of discomfort for older people. Sometimes these problems cause people to avoid foods that would otherwise be a healthy addition to the diet. For instance, flatulence or intestinal gas may prompt some individuals to forgo certain vegetables such as cabbage or beans, which are good sources of vitamins, minerals, and fiber. In other cases, adding more of certain types of foods can reduce the severity of some problems. Let's take a look at how a well-planned diet can help with a variety of common complaints.

Constipation
Constipation can result from not drinking enough fluids and by eating a diet that is too low in fiber or bulk. Certain medications, including antacids made with aluminum hydroxide or calcium carbonate, can also cause this problem, and it can be made worse by the habitual use of laxatives.

There are several things that people can do to prevent constipation from. Including a liberal amount of whole grain breads and cereals in the diet, as well as plenty of vegetables and fruits, is a start. Eating dried fruits such as prunes or figs, or drinking prune juice, may also help, since they have a natural laxative effect for many people. Drinking plenty of fluids is very important, and water is the best choice. Most people should drink six to eight glasses of water or other fluids each day. Foods that are high in fat, such as many sweets, meats and high fat dairy products, oils and margarine, or fried foods should be limited. These foods are very calorie dense and may displace foods that would otherwise provide needed fiber in the diet. Decreasing the consumption of fatty foods may also lessen the need for antacids. Don't forget, too, that a regular routine of exercise is effective in promoting good muscle tone and preventing constipation.

Gas and Heartburn
Many people experience general abdominal discomfort after eating, which may include belching, intestinal gas or flatulence, bloating, or burning sensations. These complaints have many causes, including overeating, eating too many high-fat foods, alcohol, or carbonated beverages, swallowing too much air when eating, lying down to rest immediately after eating, and taking certain drugs or aspirin. Switching to a diet that is high in fiber may also cause some flatulence at the start, although it usually lessens as the body adapts to the increased fiber intake.

One way to help relieve problems such as these is to eat smaller, more frequent meals over the course of the day instead of eating one or two larger meals. Avoiding fatty foods, alcohol, and carbonated beverages is a good idea, too. It may also be helpful to eat slowly and to chew food thoroughly before swallowing. If heartburn is a problem, avoid reclining immediately after meals, or if you do so, keep the back elevated to at least 30 degrees so that you are not lying flat on your back. Regular exercise can also help to minimize trouble with intestinal gas.

Chewing and Swallowing Problems
These may occur for a variety of reasons. For people who have trouble chewing foods, it may be helpful to cut food into small pieces and to allow extra time to chew food at a comfortable, unhurried pace. Cooking some fruits and vegetables may also be helpful and necessary for some. Poorly fitting dentures should be checked by a dentist and possibly replaced.

Drinking plenty of fluids can alleviate some swallowing problems if the throat or mouth is dry, which may be caused by certain medications or may simply be related to commonly-occurring changes that accompany the aging process. Lozenges or hard candies may be helpful in keeping the mouth moist. It may be necessary to ask your physician about whether or not a particular medication may be contributing to the problem.

What If I Have to Follow a Special Diet?
The older people get, the more likely it is that they will develop medical problems that require a special, or therapeutic, diet. People who develop diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, for instance, may have special considerations in meal planning. Most conditions, however, benefit from a diet that is high in fiber from whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and low in animal products. Well-planned vegetarian diets can help to control blood sugar levels. By limiting fat, salt, and sugar, vegetarian diets can also be useful in controlling high blood pressure, heart disease, and other conditions. However, since individuals vary in their needs, those who must follow a special diet should consult a registered dietitian for more detailed recommendations and help with meal planning.

Many people also wonder if diet can help to treat conditions such as arthritis and osteoporosis. At present, no conclusive evidence exists to recommend one kind of diet over another for the treatment of arthritis. However, a lowfat vegetarian diet may be helpful in promoting normal weight, which, in turn, may help reduce or prevent some symptoms of arthritis.

The risk for osteoporosis is influenced by many factors, including diet. Diets that are excessively high in protein and sodium can accelerate the loss of calcium from bones. Vegetarian diets tend to be moderate in protein content and, when care is taken to avoid processed foods, they can be lower in sodium as well. Including plenty of greens and other vegetables in the diet will help to ensure an adequate intake of calcium.

One of the most common surgical procedures for older people is cataract surgery, and there is a considerable amount of research being conducted presently on the relationships between diet and the incidence of cataracts and macular degeneration.

What If I Have No Appetite?
Depression because of changes in living conditions, loss of companions, certain medications, and complications in preparing meals can all result in a loss of interest in food. Sometimes eating smaller, more frequent "mini-meals" can help. It may also be a good idea to seek out meals in a social context. For instance, local vegetarian societies may have regular organized potluck dinners or restaurant outings that provide an opportunity to make new friends and enjoy a meal in the company of others.

Some common nutrition-related problems that older people encounter, and suggestions for dealing with them, are summarized in the following chart:

Common Problems and Suggested Solutions
Flatulence or gas Eat smaller, more frequent
Burning sensation, meals.
heartburn

Belching or bloating Avoid alcohol, carbonated beverages,
and high fat foods such as some
sweets, meats, oils and margarine,
and high-fat dairy foods.
Eat slowly and chew foods well.
Avoid lying down after meals.
If you do, keep head and back
elevated at a 30-degree angle.

Consider reducing aspirin intake
Ask physician to check medications.

Difficulty chewing See dentist if problem is poorly
fitting dentures. Cut food into
small pieces and chew food at a
comfortable, unhurried pace.

Cook some vegetables and fruits
to soften.

Difficulty swallowing Ask physician to check medications.
Drink plenty of water. Use lozenges
or hard candies to keep throat moist.

Constipation Eat liberal amounts of whole grains
as well as vegetables and fruits.
Try dried fruits such as prunes
or figs, or drink prune juice.

Drink 6 to 8 glasses of fluid,
especially water, each day.

Limit greasy or fatty foods such as
high-fat dairy foods, oils and
margarine, fried foods, high fat
sweets and meats.

Limit use of antacids.

Get into a regular routine of
exercise, such as walking.

High blood sugar Limit sweets and alcohol.

See a registered dietitian for
help with planning a high-fiber,
high-carbohydrate diet.

High blood pressure Limit salty foods.

See a registered dietitian for help
in planning a heart-healthy diet.

Heart disease See a registered dietitian for help in
planning a diet low in saturated fat.

Loss of appetite Eat small, frequent meals or snacks.

Also, see "Handy Hints for Quick Meals."

How Can I Make Preparing Meals a Little Easier?
Some older people may find meal planning is more burdensome if shopping or preparing meals is difficult. Arthritis, for instance, or impaired hearing or poor eyesight may make it hard to drive to the grocery store, to read food labels or package instructions, or to open bottles and handle cooking utensils. It may also be difficult to maintain the motivation to cook for only one or two people.

For all these reasons, it may be necessary for meals to be simple, quick, and convenient to prepare. Ready-to-eat, whole grain breakfast cereals are a nutritious meal or snack anytime, as are quick-cooking hot cereals like oatmeal, which can be cooked in a microwave oven. Fresh fruit is also convenient, but canned fruits, packed in their own juice or water, will keep for months in the cupboard and can also make a simple snack. Whole grain breads, bagels, and lowfat muffins can be kept in the freezer and individual servings taken out as needed. Other good freezer and cupboard staples include bags of mixed, plain frozen vegetables, whole grain crackers, peanut butter, canned beans such as pinto beans or black-eyed peas, and jars of vegetable salads such as three-bean or beet salad.

It also makes sense, for those who are able to do more extensive cooking, to fix enough of a recipe so that some can be frozen in small batches to be reheated at a later date. For example, bean chili, vegetable lasagna, some casseroles, whole grain cookies, lowfat muffins, or pancakes all freeze well and can be stored in small containers that can be reheated in a conventional or microwave oven.

A summary of some handy hints for quick meals follows:
Handy Hints for Quick Meals

Cupboard staples Ready-to-eat, whole grain
breakfast cereals; quick-cooking
whole grain cereals such as
oatmeal; canned fruit packed in
own juice; whole-grain crackers;
nut butters; canned beans such as
pintos or black-eyed peas; jars of
vegetable salads such as beets or
three-bean; low-sodium vegetarian
soups; aseptically-packaged
(long-life)containers of soy milk;
popcorn; dried fruit.

Freezer staples Frozen fruit pieces such as
strawberries or raspberries; whole
grain breads or muffins (to take
out as needed); bags or boxes of
plain, mixed frozen vegetables;
fruit juice concentrate.

Make-aheads Bean chili; vegetable lasagna;
(to be frozen in small vegetable and bean soups; whole
batches and reheated grain-and-vegetable casseroles;
at a later date) whole grain cookies, lowfat
muffins, or pancakes.

Also keep on hand Flour tortillas; salsa and
chutneys; fresh fruit.

Shopping tips Split bags of fresh vegetables,
such as carrots, celery, and
onions, or heads of lettuce, with
a friend to reduce the amount of
spoiled food that has to be thrown
away.

Shop with a list, and keep a list
on-going at home.

Does Eating Well Have To Be Expensive?
For many elderly people, a limited income or limited access to transportation to a grocery store can complicate meal planning. So, good planning can not only be efficient, it can also be economically helpful as well. Foods prepared from scratch at home are usually less expensive than packaged mixes and frozen entrees, for example, and the cook has more control over what ingredients are used, also. For example, salt or fat in a recipe can be reduced when food is prepared at home, or whole wheat flour can be substituted for refined white flour.

Wise food choices can help save money. Buying in bulk, whether an item is on special or not, can be cheaper than buying small containers of food, although storage space must be available. If a person has access to food outlet stores, substantial savings can be had on things such as baked goods or breads. If freezer space is available, trips to an outlet can be less frequent. Coupon clipping, especially for brands that are usually purchased anyway, can save as much as 10% off food bills. Many stores offer double or triple the face value of the coupon. On the other hand, store brands of certain items can be much cheaper than name brands, even after coupon discounts, and often with little detectable difference in quality. Paper goods, canned goods, jams and jellies, and breakfast cereals are just a few examples of items which may have store brand or generic options.

There are certain food items that tend to be relatively costly and also should be limited for health reasons for most people. Sweets, especially prepared desserts such as cakes, pies, and cookies, and junk foods such as chips and other fried snacks, snack cakes, and some candies can be fairly expensive. High-fat dairy foods such as cheese and ice cream are relatively expensive, and for nonvegetarians, meat is typically the costliest item on the grocery list.

Desserts can be prepared at home, with alterations in the recipe to make them more nutritious, and money can be saved. Junk food snacks can be replaced with less expensive snacks such as air-popped plain popcorn, mixtures of dry cereals, bagels, whole grain muffins, or seasonal fresh fruit. If cheese is eaten, buy small quantities and use it sparingly. Add a sprinkling of grated cheese to salads or on top of a casserole or sandwich, rather than using it as a more prominent ingredient. Meatless meals, incorporating mixtures of vegetables, whole grains, and legumes such as canned or rehydrated beans and lentils, are economical and healthful, not to mention delicious.

What Food Assistance Programs are Available for Seniors?
Food assistance programs, such as food stamps, can increase buying power for people who are eligible. Food delivery programs, such as Meals-on-Wheels, are also available for people who are housebound or have difficulty getting around or preparing meals. Congregate meal programs are available in some areas, where older people can meet in a central location to enjoy a meal in the company of others, and transportation is frequently provided to the meal site.

It is usually necessary to ask if vegetarian meal options can be made available, and the ability of food service personnel to accommodate the vegetarian's needs may vary from site to site or city to city. If there is difficulty in obtaining vegetarian meal options, contact the local vegetarian society. They may be able to refer the problem to a local dietitian-member for assistance. Find out if others are interested in lowfat vegetarian meal options. Quantity recipes are available from the Vegetarian Resource Group and other organizations, and these can be provided to food service directors or dietitians who may be able to incorporate them into menus.

Meal delivery programs may be organized by community nonprofit organizations or health and social service agencies such as hospitals, churches, nursing homes, and visiting nurses associations. To determine who is eligible, call these organizations directly. Otherwise, people can be referred by another family member, a physician, a visiting nurse, or a social worker.

Grocery delivery service is also available at stores in some communities. For people who have trouble finding transportation to the grocery store, or for those with physical limitations, a list can be phoned in to a local grocery store and someone will deliver the purchases to the home.

Summing It All Up
A well-planned vegetarian diet is health-supporting for all ages. While age-related changes affect different people in different ways, a good diet can help to overcome or reduce symptoms of certain problems that may become more common with age.

Sample Meal Plan
Breakfast 6 oz. orange juice
1 cup cooked oatmeal with
1/4 cup chopped raisins and dates
6 oz. soymilk

Snack 1 banana
1 slice whole grain toast with
2 teaspoons peanut butter

Lunch 1 cup vegetarian chili * (* see recipe source below)
1/2 fresh green pepper, sliced
1 corn muffin *
water

Snack 2 bagel halves with apple butter
6 oz. soymilk

Dinner 1-1/2 cups spinach salad with onions,
mushrooms, and cherry tomatoes
2 tablespoons no-oil dressing
1 cup cooked spaghetti topped with
1/2 cup tomato-basil sauce
Chunk of Italian bread
2 chilled, canned peach halves
water

Snack 3 cups plain popcorn
6 oz. apple juice
14% fat 14% protein 72% carbohydrate 30 grams of fiber

Recipe Suggestions
Recipe Suggestions from Simply Vegan (available for $13 from The Vegetarian Resource Group, PO Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203)
· Blended Delight (p. 18)
· Apple Raisin Spice Muffins (p. 20)*
· Banana Muffins (p. 21)*
· Corn Bread (p. 21)*
· Oatmeal Medley (p. 22)
· Cindy's Light and Fluffy Pancakes (p. 23)*
· Garbanzo Spread (p. 28)
· Peanut Butter and Fruit (p. 29)
· Popcorn Treat (p. 34)
· Mini Pizzas (p. 34)
· Apple Celery Salad (p. 41)
· Easy Pasta Salad (p. 44)
· Quick Pea Soup (p. 47)*
· Creamy Lentil Soup (p. 49)*
· Tomato/Zucchini Stir-Fry (p. 57)
· Vegetable Medley (p. 58)
· Mexican-Style Chickpeas (p. 73)
· Bean Tacos (p. 83)
· Pumpkin Casserole (p. 83)*
· Hearty Macaroni Dinner (p. 87)
· Broccoli Pasta Dish (p. 88)
· Ginger Cookies (p. 109)*
· Chocolate Pudding (p. 108)
· Karen's Creamy Rice Pudding (p. 115)
* indicates items which can be prepared ahead and frozen

Suzanne Havala is a nutrition advisor for The Vegetarian Resource Group.
Reprinted from Meatless Menu Alternatives for Seniors-The Vegetarian Resource Group.

A Diet to Lower Cancer Risk

(OV secretary Paul Appleby attended the European Conference on Nutrition and Cancer held in Lyon, France, from 21 to 24 June 2001. Here he describes the conference and discusses the latest dietary recommendations for reducing cancer risk. A PDF file containing the abstracts of the lectures and posters from the conference may be downloaded from the conference web site www.nutrition-cancer2001.com)

Organised by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation, with the support of the Europe Against Cancer Programme of the European Commission, the European Conference on Nutrition and Cancer attracted more than 350 delegates from throughout the world. There were 40 lectures and more than 130 poster presentations in the impressive Palais des Congres which hosted the conference. The main aim of the conference was to review the scientific evidence on the relationship between nutrition and cancer so as to better understand the causes of cancer and formulate appropriate public health advice.

Some preliminary results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) were presented at the conference. The EPIC study involves more than 400,000 volunteers in ten European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK) from whom detailed diet and lifestyle data have been collected. The volunteers are followed-up and the morbidity data subsequently collected are used to investigate associations between diet and lifestyle factors and cancer incidence.

The associations between diet and cancer received widespread publicity with the publication of the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) expert report Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global perspective in 1997. The report was unique in presenting recommendations in terms of both population goals and advice to individuals. Chief among these was the recommendation to eat a plant-based diet rich in a variety of vegetables, fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods. If eaten at all, red meat (beef, lamb, pork) was to be limited to no more than 80 grams per day. In essence, plant foods, especially fruits and vegetables, were to be eaten in generous quantities, whereas salted and fatty foods, especially those of animal origin, red meat, and alcohol were to be consumed in limited quantities, if at all. Although the report did not recommend a vegetarian diet as such, vegetarians and vegans could draw comfort from the fact that their own plant-based diets were in generally close agreement with the recommendations. Individuals were also advised to maintain a reasonable body weight, to exercise daily, and to avoid tobacco in any form.

Would the findings presented at the conference support the recommendations of the WCRF report and other expert reports on diet and cancer? The answer turned out to be a qualified "yes". For example, a preliminary analysis of data from the EPIC study found a positive association between the consumption of processed meat and colorectal cancer risk. That is, the greater the intake of processed meat the greater the incidence of colorectal cancer. On the other hand, results from some large dietary intervention studies, in which volunteers follow a diet designed to reduce their cancer risk, have proved disappointing. There are still a lot of lessons to be learned!

So, what are the latest dietary recommendations for reducing cancer risk? A round table discussion on the last day of the conference suggested that Europeans should eat more fruits and vegetables (at least five servings per day), take plenty of exercise (an hour's brisk walk or similar exercise daily), and maintain a healthy body weight (body mass index, calculated by dividing your weight in kilograms by the square of your height in metres, should be between 18.5 and 25). Nothing revolutionary there, but given that most Europeans consume enough food already, which foods should they eat less of in order to make room for the extra fruits and vegetables? Unfortunately, no one was able to provide a satisfactory answer to my question. Vegetarian and vegan diets represent one solution, of course. The avoidance of meat and a greater intake of fruits and vegetables are good reasons why vegetarians might expect to enjoy lower cancer rates than non-vegetarians, although a collaborative analysis of mortality in 76,000 individuals, including 28,000 vegetarians, did not show any significant differences in cancer death rates between vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians. However, adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet is unlikely to increase your cancer risk, and may confer substantial health benefits, provided that animal foods are replaced with fresh, whole foods rather than denatured, processed foods.

Paul Appleby

The Oceans and Global Warming

The Oceans
Scientists have long understood the key role that oceans play in regulating the Earth's climate. Oceans cover 70 percent of the globe and store a thousand times more heat than the atmosphere does. What's newer is the understanding of how this key component of our climate system responds to global warming.

"Even five years ago most scientists had no inkling of the extent to which global warming was affecting the oceans-but slowly over the years a consensus has been building," says Environmental Defense marine ecologist Rod Fujita. Today, the scientific community believes there's plenty to worry about: changes are afoot in global ocean dynamics that could have profound ecological impacts.

A brake on global warming-for now
One of the ocean's most important climate functions is absorbing heat and carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the gases that causes global warming. Acting as a heat sponge, the oceans have absorbed huge amounts of heat and CO2 in the last forty years.

Fujita explains that "the oceans are saving us from faster climate change-in essence, they are a big flywheel that delays rapid overheating of the earth, putting a brake on the climate system."
"That's the good news," he adds. "The bad news is that the oceans only slow the atmospheric warming down. Once the oceans come to equilibrium with a greenhouse-gas warmed earth, the excess heat will remain in the atmosphere and things will get much hotter."

In effect, the oceans are taking up the slack for the atmosphere and delaying the full impacts of global warming. But where and how the oceans release this accumulated heat is uncertain. And as the ocean stores heat, fragile underwater ecosystems are struggling.

The most recent scientific report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also notes with concern that the ocean is acidifying because of increased absorption of atmospheric CO2, and thus posing a threat for shell-forming species, which are an essential part of the marine food web. Projected increases in carbon dioxide levels will cause further acidification of the ocean.

Currents Distributing Heat
Another important role the oceans play is that of distributor. Oceans deliver heat and life-sustaining nutrients around the globe.

Just as blood vessels and capillaries bring oxygen and nutrients to cells in the human body, the ocean's currents carry oxygen, nutrients and heat throughout the Earth. The ocean distributes 25 to 50 percent of the energy the planet receives from the sun.

For example, the Gulf Stream carries heat across the Atlantic. This warm current gives northwestern Europe a milder climate than it would normally have so far north.

A change to the ocean's circulation patterns could plunge Europe into a colder era, even as the rest of world experiences warmer temperatures. (Find out more about the ocean's circulation system on oceansalive.org.)

Currents Circulating Food
Changing ocean circulation patterns would also affect the nutrient delivery system for marine life. Colder waters are more productive than warm waters. The warming of the oceans may be starting to break the ocean's food chain.

The system of currents replenishes deep waters with oxygen and carries nutrients to surface waters where microscopic plants known as phytoplankton can use them. When cold, nutrient-rich waters rise to the surface seasonally and mix with sunlit surface waters, the upwellings trigger the growth of phytoplankton.

The areas where these upwellings occur are often rich fishing grounds, the sea's "gardens of Eden" where an abundance of marine life flourishes.

As oceans absorb more heat, upwellings of cold, nutrient-rich waters can become less frequent. Without this nourishment, blooms of plant plankton, which are the base of the marine food chain, are disrupted and so food for sea life up the food chain, like krill, larger fish and seabirds, is cut off.

To make things worse, phytoplankton use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. With fewer plankton, the oceans could not remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

An Example: Starving Sea Birds
Some signs already show that the marine food web is fraying. In 2005 on the U.S. West Coast and 2004 in Britain, hundreds of thousands of seabirds failed to breed. Dead seabirds like cormorants and Cassin's auklets have washed up on West Coast beaches.
Juvenile rockfish counts were the lowest they had been off California in more than 20 years. Most alarming, small crustaceans like krill -- a critical link in the ocean's food web -- suffered steep declines.

The culprit for the collapse appears to be slackening upwellings, which decreased phytoplankton blooms in these coastal areas. Fewer phytoplankton mean fewer fish, leaving the birds to face mass starvation.

Monitoring of the oceans off Hawaii over the last 20 years shows that upwellings are decreasing. Scientists suspect that this is an effect of global warming.

The debate over global warming has shifted from whether it is happening to how to avoid catastrophic damage. Significant changes loom for seabird and fish communities, ocean circulation patterns and basic processes of ocean chemistry.

"We're facing warming waters and major alterations in many oceanic processes and ocean chemistry, damage to coral reefs, and effects from sea level rise on marine ecosystems," says Environmental Defense scientist Doug Rader.

Without emissions cuts, the effects will be even worse.
"The ship is already in motion, and it will take immediate action to turn it away from the danger ahead," sums up Environmental Defense climate scientist Dr. James Wang.

Sources for the Oceans and Global Warming
Fujita. Rod. Heal the Ocean: Solutions for Saving our Seas. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada. 55-57, 75-78.

The Heat Is On: A White Paper on Climate Action (PDF). Environmental Defense, 2004.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scientific Basis": Summary for Policymakers (PDF).

Martin, Glen. "Sea Life in Peril - Plankton Vanishing: Usual Seasonal Influx of Cold Water Isn't Happening." San Francisco Chronicle. 12 July 2005.

McCarthy, Michael. "Disaster at Sea: Global Warming Hits UK Birds." The Independent. 30 July 2004.

The National Assessment Synthesis Team. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (PDF). US Global Change Research Program, Washington D.C. 2000.

Sarmiento, J. L. ; Gruber, N. ; Brzezinski, M. A. ; Dunne, J. P. "High-Latitude Controls of Thermocline Nutrients and Low Latitude Biological Productivity" (PDF). Nature, Vol. 427, 1 January 2004.

The Basics of Global Warming

The greenhouse effect
The atmosphere has a natural supply of "greenhouse gases." They capture heat and keep the surface of the Earth warm enough for us to live on. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would be an uninhabitable, frozen wasteland.

Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere was in a rough balance with what could be stored on Earth. Natural emissions of heat-trapping gases matched what could be absorbed in natural sinks. For example, plants take in CO2 when they grow in spring and summer, and release it back to the atmosphere when they decay and die in fall and winter.

Too much greenhouse effect
Industry took off in the mid-1700s, and people started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels were burned more and more to run our cars, trucks, factories, planes and power plants, adding to the natural supply of greenhouse gases. The gases-which can stay in the atmosphere for at least fifty years and up to centuries-are building up beyond the Earth's capacity to remove them and, in effect, creating an extra-thick heat blanket around the Earth.
The result is that the globe has heated up by about one degree Fahrenheit over the past century-and it has heated up more intensely over the past two decades.

If one degree doesn't sound like a lot, consider this: the difference in global average temperatures between modern times and the last ice age-when much of Canada and the northern U.S. were covered with thick ice sheets-was only about 9 degrees Fahrenheit. So in fact one degree is very significant-especially since the unnatural warming will continue as long as we keep putting extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

How much is too much?
Already, people have increased the amount of CO2, the chief global warming pollutant, in the atmosphere to 31 percent above pre-industrial levels. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. Studies of the Earth's climate history show that even small changes in CO2 levels generally have come with significant shifts in the global average temperature.

Scientists expect that, in the absence of effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the global average temperature will increase another 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

Even if the temperature change is at the small end of the predictions, the alterations to the climate are expected to be serious: more intense storms, more pronounced droughts, coastal areas more severely eroded by rising seas. At the high end of the predictions, the world could face abrupt, catastrophic and irreversible consequences..

The science is clear
Scientists are no longer debating the basic facts of climate change. In February 2007, the thousands of scientific experts collectively known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that there is greater than 90 percent likelihood that people are causing global warming. (IPCC, 2007)

These latest findings amplify what other highly respected science organizations say:
" In a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said:
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."-Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

" The American Geophysical Union, a respected organization comprising over 41,000 Earth and space scientists, wrote in its position on climate change that "natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

Global Warming Fast Facts

Global Warming Fast Facts
National Geographic News
Updated June 14, 2007

Global warming, or climate change, is a subject that shows no sign of cooling down.
Here's the lowdown on why it's happening, what's causing it, and how it might change the planet.

Is It Happening?
Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.
Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completelyice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting-for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching-or die-off in response to stress-ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Are Humans Causing It?
"Very likely," the IPCC said in a February 2007 report.
The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)
Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

What's Going to Happen?
A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.

Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.

At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

Global Warming by Jocelyn Collins

Global Warming
by Jocelyn Collins

Global warming (also called the greenhouse effect) describes the gradual increase of the air temperature in the earth's lower atmosphere.

Why is global warming called the greenhouse effect? Greenhouses are not common in Africa, so don't be surprised if you have never seen one! They are used mainly in the cooler northern hemisphere to grow vegetables and flowers.

A greenhouse is made entirely of glass. When sunlight (shortwave radiation) strikes the glass, most of it passes through and warms up the plants, soil and air inside the greenhouse. As these objects warm up they give off heat, but these heat waves have a much longer wavelength than the incoming rays from the sun. This longwave radiation cannot easily pass through glass, it is re- radiated into the greenhouse, causing everything in it to heat up.


THE NATURAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT
The term greenhouse effect is used to describe the warming effect that certain gases have on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere under normal conditions.
Sunlight (shortwave radiation) passes easily through the earth's atmosphere. Once it strikes and warms the earth's surface, longwave radiation is given off and goes back into the atmosphere. While some of this longwave radiation or heat escapes into space, most of it is absorbed or held by carbon dioxide and other gases that exist in small quantities in the atmosphere. Thus these gases form a `blanket' that keeps the earth an average of 33 degrees centigrade warmer than it would be if this greenhouse effect did not occur. Without these gases the whole planet would be an icy wasteland with an average temperature of 16 degrees centigrade below freezing!

HOW HAVE PEOPLE ALTERED THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?
Human population growth and related industrial expansion, have led to greater air pollution and a change in the composition of the earth's atmosphere. Some pollutants enhance the natural greenhouse effect, resulting in increased global atmospheric temperatures.

WHAT ARE THE GREENHOUSE GASES?
* Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas. Human activities are not known to have had a significant influence on the atmospheric concentration of water vapour.

* Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the pollutant most responsible for increased global warming. It is released into the atmosphere mainly through burning of fossil fuels (e.g. coal, petrol, diesel). In addition, widespread destruction of natural vegetation, particularly forests, has contributed to increased atmospheric CO2 levels (see Enviro Facts "Deforestation"). This has occurred for two reasons. First, plants take up CO2 through the process of photosynthesis. The destruction of vegetation, as occurs in deforestation, reduces the amount of CO2 that is removed from the atmosphere. Second, when forests are cleared, and burnt or left to rot, CO2 is released.

* Methane (CH4) has doubled in concentration, mainly as a result of agricultural activities, between 1750 and 1990.
* Nitrous oxide (N2O), also a product of burning fossil fuel, has increased by 8% over the same period.
* Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), in addition to damaging the ozone layer, are potent greenhouse gases. Their concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing by about 4% every year.

SIGNS THAT GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEGUN
* The average global temperature is about 0,5 degrees centigrade warmer than it was 100 years ago.
* 1990 is the warmest year on record, 1988 the second warmest, and 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1986 were all warmer than any other years in the last century. Preliminary analyses of 1991 temperature records indicate that this year was also above average.
* Snow and ice-cover have decreased this century, deep ocean temperatures have increased, and cloud cover over North America has also increased over this period. The latter indicates increased atmospheric water vapour.
* Over the last century, global sea levels have risen by between 100 mm and 200 mm.

FURTHER EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING
If current pollution trends continue, scientists conclude that the earth could probably be about 1 degree centigrade warmer by 2025 and 3 degrees centigrade warmer by 2100. This rapid temperature rise could have several effects:
* These changes in global temperature, although apparently small, could cause very large changes in climate. For example, the last Ice Age, which ended approximately 15 000 years ago, was only 5 degrees centigrade colder than current temperatures, but the resulting climate changes were massive: most of North America was covered in a layer of ice about 1,5 km thick and sea levels in the Cape were about 120 m lower than at present. In those days, if you had wanted to go for a swim at Cape Agulhas you would first have had to walk about 150 km to reach the sea!
* A rapid extinction of species.
* Rising sea levels - water expands as it warms and glaciers melt, adding water to the oceans, thus we can expect widespread flooding of coastal areas as sea levels

Global Warming Revealed

Dry/Ice: Global Warming Revealed
by Drunvalo Melchizedek

What you are about to read is going to change your world forever, this I can promise you. I actually apologize that I have to be the one who brings this unsettling news, but you must know if you wish to survive, for what is coming will either be DRY and heat or ICE and freezing.
Global warming has been in the news for over 40 years, and by this time we have become complacent. Our scientists have come to the agreement that global warming will eventually cause major changes and problems in the world, but in their way of thinking it will be 50 to 100 years before we will actually have to deal with the effects.

The general idea is that global warming will be slow and the world will find time to discover the solutions to the problems.
New powerful evidence strongly suggests that this scenario is simply wrong, and we had better prepare for another more abrupt possibility.

DISCOVERY MAGAZINE
One of the first hints that something may be different than what we are being told (especially here in the US) was published in Discover magazine in September 2002 with the cover announcing "Global Warming Surprise, A New Ice Age", "Oceanographers have discovered a huge river of fresh water in the Atlantic formed by melting polar ice. They warn it could soon bury the Gulf Stream, plunging North America and Europe into frigid winters."
That was almost two years ago, and no one listened. Life goes on oblivious to the incredible danger approaching.

ENGLAND & SIR DAVID KING
Then in January 2004 enter Sir David King. Sir King is the Prime Minister of England's chief scientist. Sir King went to Mr. Blair and told him of the impending worldwide disaster and that they needed to tell the world of what was about to happen.
Tony Blair told Sir David King to be quiet and not speak. But Sir King felt that this was simply too important for him to say nothing, so in January of this year he deliberately went around Mr. Blair and went straight to the American journal Science where he published his information and concern.

Sir King said in this article, "In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism."
England placed a gag order on Sir David King, and now he is not even allowed to discuss this subject publicly without threat of detention.

AMERICA & THE PENTAGON
A month later in February 2004, the Pentagon became involved, which has stirred the world to action.
The Pentagon has been studying Global Warming for many years because of its possible national security problems associated with the kind of changes that could present themselves to the world through Global Warming.

A special study was conducted through one of the Pentagon's departments, the Office of Net Assessment, which is directed by Andrew W. Marshall, 83, who has the responsibility of identifying long-term threats to the United States.

Mr. Marshall went to a US based think-tank called Global Business Network to compile the possibilities of Global Warming on US national security. A study was completed in October of 2003 and released to the Pentagon, which was looking at this problem from the point of view of what is the worst that could happen. It was named "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security." The summary went far beyond what most Pentagon experts had expected.

Realizing the incredible possibilities of this study, Mr. Marshall made a decision to publicly report this and other information to the American people. And probably because of President Bush's stance on Global Warming, which is beyond negative, he also decided to go around the president, and he published his information and concern in Fortune magazine on February 9th 2004.
In his article in Fortune, Mr. Marshall explains how the melting North and South poles and glaciers from around the world are composed of fresh water and within this fact is the basis of the impending global weather disaster.

The Gulf Stream or scientifically referred to as North Atlantic thermohaline conveyor is a stream of warm water that comes from south of the equator and flows over the surface of the ocean toward the north where this warm water keeps Northern America and Northern and Western Europe from freezing. It also holds most of the world's weather patterns in the way we are used to.

Then as this Gulf Stream cools down, it drops to the bottom of the ocean and returns as a river in the ocean to the south where it warms up again and rises to the surface and then returns to the north one more time in a continuous convection current. It is a huge three dimensional figure eight.

The motor that keep this warm water flowing is found in the north where the Gulf Stream drops to the bottom of the ocean. It is the salt density of the ocean that causes this river to drop and pulls the warm water up from the south.

Now that the poles are melting and fresh water is flowing into the Atlantic Ocean and the salt density is decreasing, the Gulf Stream does not drop quiet as far, which results in a slowing down of this Stream. The Gulf Stream has been dramatically slowing down now for at least ten years.
As the Gulf Stream slows down, the warmth is not brought to the North Atlantic region, and the weather patterns begin to change for they are dependent on this warmth to keep a balance.

THE MELTING POLES
The Bush Administration
During the Bush administration when discussions have been held on the melting of the North & South Poles, this government and US corporate entities alike have stated that the world's scientists are all wrong on their conclusions that say there is great danger, and have led the American public to believe there is no real problem at all.

However, George W. Bush was the focus of attack by Sir David King when he wrote his article in Science, for the world's greatest scientific minds, at least one thousand seven hundred of them with the Union of Concerned Scientists say that Mr. Bush is ill informed at the least.
Since the US government is 25% of the CO2 pollution in the world that is creating Global Warming, a discussion of Mr. Bush's Global Warming policies is paramount. Perhaps one of the best articles that summaries Mr. Bush's position will be found in the ROLLING STONES magazine article of May 19, 2004 by Tim Dickinson. What follows in italics is a portion of this article.

Given the imminent threat from global warming, even the Bush administration might be expected to launch a War on Heat. After all, as a candidate in 2000, George W. Bush vowed to "establish mandatory reduction targets" for carbon-dioxide emissions, saying he would make the issue a top priority.

Once Bush became president, however, reducing carbon emissions was the first promise he broke -- and his record has been all downhill from there. Only two months after taking office, the administration withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the global treaty that the United States signed in 1997 to set strict limits on greenhouse emissions. Instead, Bush instituted a voluntary emissions plan that has been an abject failure: So far, only fourteen companies have pledged to curb their CO2 output.

The president also folded the interagency group that monitors climate change into the Commerce Department -- led by Secretary Don Evans, a former oil and gas executive. And he called for additional climate research that would delay any meaningful regulation for at least another decade. "We do not know how much our climate could or will change in the future," Bush declared in a speech in the Rose Garden. Such statements spurred an open letter signed by twenty Nobel laureates, who blasted the administration for having "consistently sought to undermine" public understanding of man's role in global warming. (Bush's science adviser refused to be interviewed for this article.)

Then the censorship began. In September 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released an air-quality report that - for the first time since 1996 - included no mention of global warming. Seven months later, the White House made wholesale revisions to the climate-change chapter of the EPA's "Report on the Environment," playing down human influence, deleting references to the health impacts of global warming and inserting climate data funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. The EPA withdrew the altered chapter, acknowledging in an internal memo that it "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Even some Republicans have been astounded at Bush's meddling in EPA affairs. "What seems constantly evident with George W. Bush is that EPA is expected to take its marching orders from the White House on regulatory matters," says Russell Train, who headed the agency under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. "During my time, I never had that happen. Never." Train, a recipient of a Presidential Medal of Freedom from the elder Bush, calls the administration's approach to global warming "totally wrong" and "irresponsible."

Bush can rely on key Republicans in Congress to block any efforts to curb pollution and stave off disaster. Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, dismisses global warming as a "hoax." In a speech last July, Inhofe compared the IPCC to the Soviets and extolled the virtues of what he called a "CO2-enhanced" world. "It is my fervent hope," he concluded, "that Congress will reject the prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet from catastrophic disaster."

From another point of view in the same article we hear: "They (the Bush Administration) do not have a credible plan, either domestically or internationally, for addressing the problem (Global Warming), says Michael Oppenheimer, a climatologist at Princeton University. They (the Bush Administration) argue that they don't want to address global warming, he says, 'because the science is shaky'. And that approach is indefensible, because the science isn't shaky."

The North Pole Melting
Let's look at the facts. Two summers ago the North Pole completely melted for the first time in history that we know of. Both private and military ships floated directly over the actual North Pole as it was completely water. This area has never been seen to be less then ten feet of solid ice.

Greenpeace a few years ago announced that the North Pole's winter to summer snow pack had receded by around three hundred miles, but no one listened.

And today, as I am writing this article, we are witnessing the Alaska fire that has consumed over one million acres of forest. This fire is burning in an area that is always wet with rain or snow until now. And this fire, as you will understand in this article is directly related to the melting of the poles and the Gulf Stream.

But finally the Pentagon, thanks to Andrew Marshall, has told the truth in the Fortune magazine on February 9th. The Pentagon shows a satellite photo of the North Pole in 1970 and then in 2003, which reveals that, according to the Pentagon, 40% of the North Pole has melted in just 33 years. And it is melting faster and faster now. The Pentagon has now proven that all these government statements that the poles are not melting were simply a lie. And it is a lie more damaging than anything that Bush's Iraq war could possibly throw at the United States.

The South Pole Melting
In the South Pole a couple of years ago Larsen A ledge broke off, which surprised many scientists. At that time we were told by the scientific personnel that were studying this event that it was no big deal since this ice ledge had only been connected to the South Pole for about the last ten thousand years.

And these same scientists also added that Larsen B ledge that was behind Larsen A ledge would never melt as it has been there for many ice ages. Yet last year, Larsen's B ledge broke off and went to sea. These same scientists said that it would take six months to melt because of its immense size, but again they were wrong. It melted in a mere 35 days, and more significant, it rose the entire world's oceans by almost an inch.

Now with Larsen's B ledge gone, an incredibly enormous ice shelf called Ross's Shelf is exposed and the only thing holding Ross's Shelf from sliding into the ocean was Larsen's B ledge. According to my sources, Ross's Shelf is now cracking.

If Ross's Shelf were to slide into the ocean, it has been estimated that it would raise the entire world's oceans by sixteen to twenty feet. And that, my friends, would change the world, as almost every coastal city in the world and many islands along with the county of Holland would be underwater. Perhaps it will take an event like this to wake up the world to become serious about Global Warming.

THE ANCIENT PAST
1300 AD
The Pentagon in their study of what is now happening in the North Atlantic ocean, has looked into the past to see when this slowing down or stoppage of the Gulf Stream has happened before and what actually took place at those time in the world's weather patterns.

In actual fact, this North Atlantic ocean slowing or stoppage has happen hundreds of times before in the past going back hundred of millions years, but in our recent past of the last 10,000 years, it has only happened twice.

The most recent time was in the year 1300 AD, and at that time it simply slowed down. It never actually stopped. And why it slowed down, scientists are at the moment theorizing. They don't really know why.

It resulted in abrupt global climatic weather changes that never returned to normal for 550 years. This period of time in our history has been named the "Little Ice Age" because of the havoc it caused to our weather and the dramatic cooling that resulted.

What the Pentagon has realized is that at that time of the "Little Ice Age", the East Coast of America became extremely cold, while the middle and Western areas of the United States became so dry that the Midwest became a dust bowl and the mountain forests burned to the ground, just as they are doing right now today, for you see, this slowing down of the Gulf Stream has been going on today for about ten years. It also affected Europe dramatically as their weather changed completely during the "Little Ice Age".

A study of the Anasazi Indians of the 14th century is enlightening. In Chaco Canyon in New Mexico the Anasazi completely disappeared, and where they went no one is sure. But one of the reasons that has emerged from the study of the New Mexico environment for their leaving the area is that soon after the turn of the 14th century, Chaco Canyon went into a drought where they didn't receive a drop of rain for 47 years! 47 years of drought will definitely cause anyone to move. No water, no life.

The archeologists who presented this study didn't know why the drought happened, but it is clear why it happened with the information of the Gulf Stream slowing down just before this period. And this is exactly what the Pentagon believes is about to happen here in America, Canada and Europe as we speak.

We may think that this current drought in the US West is going to stop soon, but the earth's history with the Gulf Stream suggests strongly that it will continue for about another 40 years before it begin to regain balance.

8200 Years Ago
However, the Pentagon report believes that the Gulf Stream, from everything they know, is not just going to slow down, but rather it is going to stop. And the last time this happened was 8200 years ago.

And according to the Pentagon, from their research, this is a much more dramatic scenario. When the Gulf Stream stopped 8200 years ago, it soon left Northern Europe under a half mile of ice, and New York and England quickly endured weather similar to Siberia.

Further it resulted in a true "Ice Age" that lasted about 100 years, and so you can see why the Pentagon is so worried. According to Andrew Marshall, like Sir David King, he says that this Gulf Stream problem is a greater threat to US national security (and other countries') than all of the world's combined terrorism. Really, when you think about it, terrorism is nothing compared to the stopping of the Gulf Stream. It's not even close.

Realize that without stable weather conditions, the growing of food becomes almost impossible, and according to the Pentagon, this could become such a huge problem for the world in the near future, that wars will begin to form all over the world, not for oil or energy, but for food and water.

And with whole countries having to evacuate, if this were to happen, such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark, which will be under ice, and many other countries for other reasons, this enormous immigration is what will cause the most threat to national security, again according to the Pentagon report.

This is why Andrew Marshall and Sir David King wanted the world to know about what was coming so that the world could begin to prepare for the inevitable.

THE US SENATE
Then in March 2004 the US Senate became aware of what the Pentagon was saying and they appropriated 60 million dollars to the study of ABRUPT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES. This offers hope that soon the US Senate will begin to tell the world of these coming climate changes.

THE UNITED NATIONS
In June 2004, ending on June 29th, a meeting was held at the United Nations to consider what to do about Global Warming and the Gulf Stream. 154 countries participated with the result that the only thing they could figure out what to do was to eliminate the use of oil and gasoline as soon as possible.

There are those who believe that if we continue to lower the CO2 levels, that possibly we can slow down the problems, and, of course, we must do everything we can. This is important for there are ocean currents other that the North Atlantic that are in every ocean, and if they all were to stop or slow down, Earth would all most certainly enter a true ice age. And history has shown that if that were to happen, our civilization would not return to a warm period again for 90,000 years.

But really, to change or increase the current of the entire Atlantic ocean to bring it back to "normal" is beyond the possibilities of the human race and all of it's technologies. It is too late, by the estimate of most of the world's scientists, to alter the course of what is about to happen. All we can do now is prepare for the shock. And preparation is essential, which is the main message of both Sir David King and Andrew Marshall.

NASA PREPARES
On July 13th, 2004, NASA launched a satellite, the first of three, that's whole purpose is to study Global Warming. Besides the study of the ozone, another huge problem associated with Global Warming, these satellites will monitor the temperature and salt density of the oceans. Perhaps we will at least be able to monitor the rapid changes and predict what will happen next.

SOME UNUSUAL WEATHER CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED
SINCE THE GULF STREAM SLOWED DOWN
In March 2004 the world saw a major hurricane hit the coast of Brazil. This is the first time in all recorded history that a hurricane has struck land in South America.
In May 2004, the United States witnessed 562 tornadoes in a single month, breaking all records. A few of these tornadoes were recorded in Seattle, Washington. Never has a tornado been seen in Seattle.

Eastern Canada in the winter of 2003/2004 just had one of the coldest winters on record.
For several years forest fires have been burning around the world. The list would be extensive. The north part of Australia is on fire. Alaska, as we have already mentioned, is burning. Unprecedented!

The entire Western United States is under fire, jumping from region to region, with the US government announcing that this is the worse drought in 500 years. Really, the fires are worldwide.

France and Europe had a heat wave in 2003 that caused 15,000 people to die in France and 30,000 through-out Europe simply from the intense heat caused by Global Warming and the Gulf Stream.

Argentina this month July 2004, had the greatest storm they have ever seen in their history.
Mexico's weather is so strange and wet in some regions that mold/fungus is forming on their crops. (And in other regions they are having a drought) As weather patterns begin to change more and more radically, food growth will become one of our biggest problems.

The coral reefs of the world are dying because of Global Warming, and this is threatening most of the islands in the oceans, including those in the Pacific. Anyone living on most islands will probably have to leave sooner or later because of their fresh water being corrupted with salt ocean water. Definitely they will have to leave if the oceans rise much higher.

Further, it was reported on NPR this morning, July 16, 2004, that fifty percent of the CO2 that has been released in the atmosphere from our technological society has ended up in our oceans and this in turn is dropping the PH to the acidic. This in turn is actually dissolving the coral reefs and killing them along with vast numbers of other life forms in the oceans.

These are problems simply off the top of my head. If one were to get serious and really research all the strange weather problems of the last ten years (the years the Gulf Stream slowed down) one would begin to be truly aware of the coming abrupt global climate weather changes that we must all adapt to if humanity is to continue on Earth.

THE 40-FOOT WALL
In the Pentagon report it suggests that the United States build a 40-foot wall around the entire country to keep out people who are immigrating and trying to escape world weather problems. The Pentagon believes that food and water will be the biggest problem, and since the US has the money to buy food, they believe we will be best able to resist this particular problem longer than most countries. People will want to come here just to get food.

This sounds like something out of a weird movie, but in fact the US government has already begun the construction of this wall between the US and Mexico.

SIDE NOTE:
Speaking of movies, The Day After Tomorrow, which was recently released is based on this information of the Gulf Stream stopping. However, Hollywood exaggerated the results of the storms so much that most people simply thought it was fantasy. It is not fantasy, it is really happening, but will it happen as this movie predicts? And in this movie you saw massive amount of Americans fleeing to Mexico to escape the extreme cold weather.

I just spoke with a US military person about two weeks ago who is involved in the construction of this 40-foot wall. In the discussion, with him about the Gulf Stream, which he was unaware of, he said, "Oh, now I understand. You see, the wall is straight up and down on the Mexican side, but it has steps and ladders on the US side to get over the wall and into Mexico. I never could understand why the government was doing this."

THE CHANGING OF THE SHAPE OF THE GULF STREAM
In the Pentagon report they said that they believed that the stoppage of the Gulf Stream would probably happen in three to five years from October 2003. This was their best guess, and admittedly it was only a guess and a theory.

But what they didn't know, because it was beginning at the actual time of their release of their report, was that the Gulf Stream was beginning to change shape. The change of shape of the Gulf Stream is the beginning of the breakdown and stoppage of this warm water current and the end of our civilization as we know it.

I have this information from two sources, both of which do not wish to be named right now, but both of them are world famous scientists.

If this is true, then all the effects and timing of the Pentagon report have to be shifted closer to the present by three to five years.

I don't know if this is true, but in the vein of holding nothing back, this info is placed in this article. The actual proof will follow if it will be given to me.

FROM MY HEART TO YOURS
As I became aware of this information, I didn't know what to do or if I should write this article. But because I believe in and love humanity, I finally realized, like Sir David King and Andrew Marshall, that I must speak out, for knowledge is power.

And when the time comes for us all to make life decisions, my prayer is that we all go inside where God resides and listen to our inner Heart. If we trust in ourselves and the presence of Divine Guidance, we will all know exactly what to do and where to be.
May God bless us all in what is about to come.

Global Warming

Published on Monday, September 12, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
On Katrina, Global Warming
Speech given by Al Gore

The following is a transcript of a speech given by former Vice President Al Gore at the National Sierra Club Convention in San Francisco on September 9, 2005 addressing the challenges and moral imperatives posed by Hurricane Katrina and global warming.

I know that you are deeply concerned, as I am, about the direction in which our country has been moving. About the erosion of social capital. About the lack of respect for a very basic principle, and that is that we, as Americans, have to put ourselves and our ability to seek out the truth because we know it will make us free. And then on the basis of truth, as we share it to the best of our abilities with one another, we act to try to form a more perfect union and provide for the general welfare and make this country worthy of the principles upon which it was founded.

My heart is heavy for another reason today, and many have mentioned this, but I want to tell you personally that my heart is heavy because of the suffering that the people of the Gulf Coast have been enduring. The losses that they've suffered in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, New Orleans in particular, but other cities as well, and rural areas. We are here thinking of them, thinking as well of the many brave men and women who have exceeded the limits of exhaustion as they do their duty in responding to this crisis, to the families of those responders and the families of the victims.

When I received the invitation that you generously extended for me to come and speak to you, I did not at first accept, because I was trying to resolve a scheduling conflict. The fifty State Insurance Commissioners were meeting in New Orleans, and asked me to speak about global warming and hurricanes.

I was supposed to be there today and tomorrow morning. And of course as we all watch this tragedy unfold, we had a lot of different thoughts and feelings. But then all those feelings were mixed in with puzzlement at why there was no immediate response, why there was not an adequate plan in place. We are now told that this is not a time to point fingers, even as some of those saying "don't point fingers" are themselves pointing fingers at the victims of the tragedy, who did not - many of whom could not - evacuate the city of New Orleans, because they didn't have automobiles, and they did not have adequate public transportation.

We're told this is not a time to hold our national government accountable because there are more important matters that confront us. This is not an either/or choice. They are linked together. As our nation belatedly finds effective ways to help those who have been so hard hit by Hurricane Katrina, it is important that we learn the right lessons of what has happened, lest we are spoon-fed the wrong lessons from what happened. If we do not absorb the right lessons, we are, in the historian's phrase, doomed to repeat the mistakes that have already been made. All of us know that our nation - all of us, the United States of America - failed the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast when this hurricane was approaching them, and when it struck. When the corpses of American citizens are floating in toxic floodwaters five days after a hurricane strikes, it is time not only to respond directly to the victims of the catastrophe but to hold the processes of our nation accountable, and the leaders of our nation accountable, for the failures that have taken place. [applause]

The Bible in which I believe, in my own faith tradition, says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Four years ago in August of 2001, President Bush received a dire warning: "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside the US." No meetings were called, no alarms were sounded, no one was brought together to say, "What else do we know about this imminent threat? What can we do to prepare our nation for what we have been warned is about to take place?" If there had been preparations, they would have found a lot of information collected by the FBI, and CIA and NSA - including the names of most of the terrorists who flew those planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania. The warnings of FBI field offices that there were suspicious characters getting flight training without expressing any curiosity about the part of the training that has to do with landing. They would have found directors of FBI field offices in a state of agitation about the fact that there was no plan in place and no effective response. Instead, it was vacation time, not a time for preparation. Or protecting the American people.

Four years later, there were dire warnings, three days before Hurricane Katrina hit NOLA, that if it followed the path it was then on, the levees would break, and the city of New Orleans would drown, and thousands of people would be at risk. It was once again vacation time. And the preparations were not made, the plans were not laid, the response then was not forthcoming.

In the early days of the unfolding catastrophe, the President compared our ongoing efforts in Iraq to World War II and victory over Japan. Let me cite one difference between those two historical events: When imperial Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt did not invade Indonesia. [applause]

I personally believe that the very fact that there has been no accountability for the horrendous misjudgments and outright falsehoods that laid the basis for this horrible tragedy that we have ongoing in Iraq, the fact that there was no accountability for those mistakes, misjudgments and dissembling, is one of the principal reasons why there was no fear of being held accountable for a cavalier, lackluster, mistaken, inadequate response to the onrushing tragedy that was clearly visible - for those who were watching television, for those who were reading the news - what happened was not only knowable, it was known in advance, in great and painstaking detail. They did tabletop planning exercises, they identified exactly what the scientific evidence showed would take place. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

It's not only that there is no vision; it's that there has been a misguided vision. One of the principal philosophical guides for this administration has been the man who said famously that he wants to render the government of the United States so weak and helpless that you can drown it in a bathtub. There were warnings three years ago from the last director in the Clinton-Gore Administration of FEMA that FEMA was being rendered weak and helpless, unable to respond in the event of a catastrophe. The budget was cut, the resources sent elsewhere.

Carl [Pope] said he was embarrassed. The word is a tricky word. What did you feel after the invasion of Iraq when you saw American soldiers holding dog leashes attached to helpless prisoners, 99% of whom, by the way, were innocent of any connection to violence against our troops, much less terrorism - innocent prisoners who were being tortured in our name - what did you feel? I don't know the words. I don't know the words but I want you to draw a line connecting the feelings you had when you saw the visual images providing evidence that our soldiers, acting in our name, with our authority, were torturing helpless people and that it was a matter of policy - now, they pointed fingers at the privates and corporals that were in charge - but I want you to draw a line between the emotions that you felt when you absorbed that news, and the emotions that you felt over the last ten days when you saw those corpses in the water, when you saw people without food, water, medicine - our fellow citizens left helpless. And of course in both cases the story is complex and many factors are involved, but I want you draw a line connecting the feelings that you had then and now. And I want you to draw another line, connecting those responsible for both of those unbelievable tragedies that embarrassed our nation in the eyes of the world.

There are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe. We were warned of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda; we didn't respond. We were warned the levees would break in New Orleans; we didn't respond. Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming. A scientist at MIT has published a study well before this tragedy showing that since the 1970s, hurricanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration, and in intensity, by about 50 %. The newscasters told us after Hurricane Katrina went over the southern tip of Florida that there was a particular danger for the Gulf Coast of the hurricanes becoming much stronger because it was passing over unusually warm waters in the gulf. The waters in the gulf have been unusually warm. The oceans generally have been getting warmer. And the pattern is exactly consistent with what scientists have predicted for twenty years. Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming. [applause] It is important to learn the lessons of what happens when scientific evidence and clear authoritative warnings are ignored in order to induce our leaders not to do it again and not to ignore the scientists again and not to leave us unprotected in the face of those threats that are facing us right now. [applause]

The President says that he is not sure that global warming is a real threat. He says that he is not ready to do anything meaningful to prepare us for a threat that he's not certain is real. He tells us that he believes the science of global warming is in dispute. This is the same president who said last week, "Nobody could have predicted that the levees would break." It's important to establish accountability in order to make our democracy work. And the uncertainty and lack of resolution, the willful misunderstanding of what the scientific community is saying, the preference for what a few supporters in the coal and oil industry - far from all, but a few - want him to do: ignore the science. That is a serious problem. The President talked about the analogies to World War II - let me give another analogy to World War II.

Winston Churchill, when the storm was gathering on continental Europe, provided warnings of what was at stake. And he said this about the government then in power in England - which wasn't sure that the threat was real, he said, "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent." He continued, "The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."
Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences. Churchill also said this, and he directed it at the people of his country who were looking for any way to avoid having to really confront the threat that he was warning of and asking them to prepare for. He said that he understood why there was a natural desire to deny the reality of the situation and to search for vain hope that it wasn't really as serious as some claimed it was. He said they should know the truth. And after the appeasement by Neville Chamberlain, he sad, "This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year - unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we rise again and take our stand for freedom."

It is time now for us to recover our moral health in America and stand again to rise for freedom, demand accountability for poor decisions, missed judgments, lack of planning, lack of preparation, and willful denial of the obvious truth about serious and imminent threats that are facing the American people. [applause]

Abraham Lincoln said, "The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."

We must disenthrall ourselves with the sound-and-light show that has diverted the attentions of our great democracy from the important issues and challenges of our day. We must disenthrall ourselves from the Michael Jackson trial and the Aruba search and the latest sequential obsession with celebrity trials or whatever relative triviality dominates the conversation of democracy instead of making room for us as free American citizens to talk with one another about our true situation, and then save our country. We must resist those wrong lessons.

Some are now saying, including in the current administration, that the pitiful response by government proves that we cannot ever rely on the government. They have in the past proposed more unilateral power for themselves as the solution for a catastrophe of their own creation, and we should not acquiesce in allowing them to investigate themselves and giving them more power to abuse and misuse, the way they have so recently done. The fact that an administration can't manage its own way out of a horse show doesn't mean that all government programs should be abolished. FEMA worked extremely well during the previous administration.

A hundred years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding." Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Hurricanes have come for a long time, and will continue to come in the future. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season. But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm - thus magnifying its destructive power - makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, "It's impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic." We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 - largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes. Last year we had record temperatures in many cities. This year 200 cities in the Western United States broke all-time records. Reno, 39 days consecutively above 100 degrees.

The scientists are telling us that what the science tells them is that this - unless we act quickly and dramatically - that Tucson tied its all-time record for consecutive days above 100 degrees. this, in Churchill's phrase, is only the first sip of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year until there is a supreme recover of moral health. We have to rise with this occasion. We have to connect the dots. When the Superfund sites aren't cleaned up, we get a toxic gumbo in a flood. When there is not adequate public transportation for the poor, it is difficult to evacuate a city. When there is no ability to give medical care to poor people, its difficult to get hospital to take refugees in the middle of a crisis. When the wetlands are turned over to the developers then the storm surges from the ocean threaten the coastal cities more. When there is no effort to restrain the global warming pollution gasses then global warming gets worse, with all of the consequences that the scientific community has warned us about.

My friends, the truth is that our circumstances are not only new; they are completely different than they have ever been in all of human history. The relationship between humankind and the earth has been utterly transformed in the last hundred years. We have quadrupled the population of our planet. The population in many ways is a success story. The demographic transition has been occurring more quickly than was hoped for, but the reality of our new relationship with the planet brings with it a moral responsibility to accept our new circumstances and to deal with the consequences of the relationship we have with this planet. And it's not just population. By any means, the power of the technologies now at our disposal vastly magnifies the average impact that individuals can have on the natural world. Multiply that by six and a half billion people, and then stir into that toxic mixture a mindset and an attitude that says its okay to ignore scientific evidence - that we don't have to take responsibility for the future consequences of present actions - and you get a collision between our civilization and the earth. The refugees that we have seen - I don't like that word when applied to American citizens in our own country, but the refugees that we have seen could well be the first sip of that bitter cup because sea-level rise in countries around the world will mobilize millions of environmental refugees. The other problems are known to you, but here is what I want to close with:

This is a moral moment. This is not ultimately about any scientific debate or political dialogue. Ultimately it is about who we are as human beings. It is about our capacity to transcend our own limitations. To rise to this new occasion. To see with our hearts, as well as our heads, the unprecedented response that is now called for. To disenthrall ourselves, to shed the illusions that have been our accomplices in ignoring the warnings that were clearly given, and hearing the ones that are clearly given now.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. And Lincoln said at another moment of supreme challenge that the question facing the people of the United States of America ultimately was whether or not this government, conceived in liberty, dedicated to freedom, of the people, by the people, and for the people - or any government so conceived - would perish from this earth.

There is another side to this moral challenge. Where there is vision, the people prosper and flourish, and the natural world recovers, and our communities recover. The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. We have every thing we need - save perhaps political will. And in our democracy, political will is a renewable resource. [sustained applause]

I know that you are debating as an organization and talking among yourselves about your own priorities. I would urge you to make global warming your priority. I would urge you to focus on a unified theme. I would urge you to work with other groups in ways that have not been done in the past, even though there have been Herculean efforts on your part and the part of others. I would urge you to make this a moral moment. To make this a moral cause.

There are those who would say that the problem is too big and we can't solve it. There are many people who go from denial to despair without pausing on the intermediate step of actually solving the problem. To those who say it's too big for us, I say that we have accepted and successfully met such challenges in the past. We declared our liberty, and then won it. We designed a country that respected and safeguarded the freedom of individuals. We freed the slaves. We gave women the right to vote. We took on Jim Crow and segregation. We cured great diseases, we have landed on the moon, we have won two wars in the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaneously. We brought down communism, we brought down apartheid, we have even solved a global environmental crisis before - the hole in the stratospheric ozone layer - because we had leadership and because we had vision and because people who exercise moral authority in their local communities empowered our nation's government "of the people by the people and for the people" to take ethical actions even thought they were difficult. This is another such time. This is your moment. This is the time for those who see and understand and care and are willing to work to say, "This time the warnings will not be ignored. This time we will prepare. This time we will rise to the occasion. And we will prevail."

Thank you. Good luck to you, God bless you.