*updated* drink coke in canada and help get $100,000 to polar bears

via the workcabin.ca facebook page

Coca-Cola Ltd. today announced details of its ongoing commitment to WWF-Canada's polar bear conservation efforts. In celebration of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games, Coca-Cola will double last year's $100,000 contribution through its holiday program by contributing $200,000 to WWF-Canada's efforts in 2009.

"Global climate change is an important issue that impacts all of us," said Bobby Britain, VP Sparkling, Coca-Cola Ltd. "By continuing our partnership with WWF-Canada we are making a commitment to do our part to slow climate change and support the polar bear population in Canada."

As part of the 2009 holiday campaign, Coca-Cola is asking Canadians to help protect the polar bear by going to icoke.ca and entering icoke PINS found on specially marked Coca-Cola beverages. For every PIN entered, Coca-Cola will make a cash donation to WWF-Canada, up to a total of $100,000. Coca-Cola will also be matching individual consumer donations to WWF, up to a total of $75,000 and will make a $15 contribution to WWF for each holiday eGift redeemed on icoke.ca, up to $25,000.

Canadians who enter eight PINs on icoke.ca can redeem them for one of three Coca-Cola Olympic Games Bears. The plush polar bears, made from 100% recycled PET, serve as a Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games collectible item and a reminder of the impact climate change is having on our polar bears.

"This is an important year for the Arctic and for polar bears," said Gerald Butts, President and CEO, WWF-Canada. "We are pleased to work with Coca-Cola to raise awareness and encourage Canadians to take action."

Since 1912, polar bears have symbolized the joy of coming together in Coca-Cola campaigns around the world. However, experts predict that if current climate trends continue, polar bears could become extinct by the end of this century. Through Coca-Cola's multi-million dollar holiday program, the company hopes to increase awareness of polar bear threats and encourage support for WWF-Canada's efforts.

The holiday campaign will be seen on TV, in cinema, in-store and on specially marked beverage packaging from the beginning of November, 2009 to January 5, 2010.

Coca-Cola is supporting its commitment to the environment by working with WWF-Canada to:

- Conserve freshwater resources in Canada

- Improve efficiency of the company's water use and decrease the
company's greenhouse gas emissions and energy use

- Inspire and engage Canadians to fight climate change and live
sustainable lives

*UPDATE*
editor's note: as a caveat a friend of mine pointed out the following:

"Well, this is a typical ethical dilemma in the world of conservation. Coca-Cola doesn't exactly have a great environmental track record ( e.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3096893.stm)...the question becomes, do we, as consumers, support a company that we know is (probably intentionally) damaging the environment in one part of the world, but donating money to protect the environment in another part of the world. Like BP - many conservation organizations and scientists get funding from BP, but, let's be clear - BP has a terrible environmental record. Do we forgive companies if they donate to our cause? I don't know the answer.

Also see: http://health.yahoo.com/experts/drmao/20270/what-soft-drinks-are-doing-to-your-body/"

Africa walks out of climate talks in Barcelona! Demands action from developed countries.

image from africafiles.org

From wwf.ca via the wwf canada facebook page

Africa is right to demand action on climate from developed countries: WWF-Canada
Today at the Barcelona climate negotiations, African countries insisted on clarity of the aggregate emissions reductions of the industrialized nations, and blocked some meetings of subgroups to underline the importance of this point.

Today at the Barcelona climate negotiations, African countries insisted on clarity of the aggregate emissions reductions of the industrialized nations, and blocked some meetings of subgroups to underline the importance of this point.

“Africa is on the front line of any political failure of the climate change talks. These countries will suffer disastrous consequences and we should not be surprised that they are asking the developed world to commit to serious emissions reductions,” said Kim Carstensen, Leader of WWF's Global Climate Initiative. "We need Canada, Russia and the US to deliver their reduction numbers and unlock the negotiations.”

"This is an entirely foreseeable consequence of Canada going into UN climate negotiations without the domestic policy package promised earlier this year," said Keith Stewart, the Director of WWF-Canada's Climate Change Program. "Canada is in the top ten of global climate polluters any way you look at the numbers. Now is the time to be part of the solution by investing in the clean-energy economy."

Most Annex 1 countries – with the US and Russia as the main exceptions – have announced their emissions reduction targets, but they don’t add up to the level of at least 40% below 1990 levels that is needed to give Africa some certainty against the worst consequences of climate change. Canada's target of 3% below 1990 levels by 2020 has been widely criticized as inconsistent with what climate scientists say is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

"We understand and share Africa’s frustration and we will continue supporting its efforts for a strong and legally binding deal," said Carstensen. “We know the science, we have enough text and documents to fill a bookshop. All we do not have is political will.

"Africa cannot afford for industrialized countries to fail the numbers test,” he added.

For more information:
Keith Stewart, Climate Change Program Director
WWF-Canada
Tel. 416-489-4567 xt. 7257
Cell: 416-985-5936
E-mail: kstewart@wwfcanada.org

The Pit-Bull problem

image from Bellazgirl

from newsweek.com
America's most-maligned dog wants to be sweet and docile, but well-meaning humans mess it all up.
By Joan Raymond | Newsweek Web Exclusive

A 10-acre stretch of land just outside Los Angeles is pit-bull Nirvana. It's called Villalobos Rescue Center and it's run by Tia Maria Torres, an unabashed pit-bull lover. Torres has found homes for thousands of pits since the rescue opened its doors 15 years ago. Some of these animals were abandoned. Some were shelter dogs slated for euthanasia. Others were confiscated in drug busts or fighting rings. And some—like Mouse, a small white pit bull—are victims of nature, the so-called Hurricane Katrina dogs of New Orleans.

It's a 24/7 job, but Torres gets help from a posse of volunteers, her four children, and six ex-cons, who she calls her "pit bulls on legs." Her work is chronicled in a new six-part documentary, Pit Bulls and Parolees, airing on Animal Planet, the first of which premiered on Friday night. You'd have to carry a cold heart to not feel something for what these dogs have endured.

But I have a problem with pit bulls. And it has more to do with the two-legged creatures holding their leashes (if there is a leash).

Because of their sheer numbers—estimates show that there are anywhere from 5 million to 10 million pit-bull-type dogs in the U.S. today, out of about 61 million total dogs—pits have become the dog du jour for a lot of people, not just gangbangers and wannabe thugs who use a pit as proxy for toughness. About 20 percent of dogs in ASPCA shelters are pit mixes.

I've seen those who adopt these dogs for all the wrong reasons. The fearful might get a pit because they want a great guard dog. (Pits make lousy guard dogs. A well-bred pit is just too human-friendly to protect your property.) Some get a pit because Rachael Ray has one and they want to rescue a dog. (Why didn't you take up cooking instead of getting a dog that you know nothing about?) And the trendiest pet owners spend thousands of dollars for a "blue" pit because the dogs are rare. (No, they aren't, and you just got swindled by an unethical breeder who contributed to the overpopulation problem.) But pets aren't purses, and people who jump into pit-bull ownership without the requisite training and education can often do more harm than good. That's why when I see a pit off-leash and I'm walking Turk, my 20-pound schnoodle, I'm scared.

Let's face it: pit bulls are public enemy No. 1. That's quite a comedown for a pup once considered "America's dog." They were owned by the likes of Helen Keller and Teddy Roosevelt, and when I was a kid, a wiry American pit-bull terrier named Sam endured the indignity of being called a "horsy" as he pulled me around in a wagon on an upstate New York farm. But in talking with pit-bull experts, it's clear that some current owners are too easy to spook, are too ill-informed, and have unrealistic expectations of what pit bulls can do.

Torres knows all about the pit bull's people problem. "Oh, my God, I see it all the time," she says. "Some of these people are completely clueless. They get a pit and then they want to get rid of it if it grabs and shakes a toy and barks. They don't understand why it loves everybody, but scraps with dogs. It's insane. And it's hurting the pit bull."

Some of the so-called pit problems are directly linked to the dog's history. Today's pit bull can trace its roots back to bulldogs, which were used for bull baiting, a gruesome spectacle in which the dogs would try to pin a tied bull by latching on to its nose. When bull baiting was outlawed, these bulldogs were then bred with small terriers, feisty dogs known for their drive. The end result was the original pit bull, a "canine gladiator" bred specifically for dog-on-dog combat.

Though the majority of pit bulls today are no longer being purposefully bred along fighting lines, pit bulls still can be dog aggressive (as are many other types of dogs). How that plays out will vary from pit to pit, and the dogs need a smart owner to keep them in line. Dog aggression can be managed by getting a pit into a training program that offers structured, controlled socialization, says Mary Harwelik, a certified dog trainer and founder of The Real Pit Bull, a pit advocacy and education organization in New Jersey.

Pits are also among the most human-friendly canines. In tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society, which evaluates stability, friendliness, and other traits in several hundred dog breeds, the American pit-bull terrier scored 85.3 percent, higher than a golden retriever. Their human-friendly nature remains strong even in horrific circumstances. "I thought I was going to meet a bunch of Tasmanian devils," says Dr. Frank MacMillan, a veterinarian with Best Friends Animal Sanctuary who is working with some 20 pit bulls rescued from Michael Vick's Bad Newz Kennels. "I was stunned at how sweet they were."

That inherent sweetness toward people can lead well-meaning humans to be too permissive with their precious pooches. Because of its tendencies toward dog-on-dog aggression, Torres advises pit owners to keep their dogs out of mosh-pit, free-for-all dog parks. "Not a lot of pit owners want to hear that," says Torres. "If there's a fight, no matter what dog started it, the pit will be blamed."

At Villalobos, Torres does an exhaustive interview with potential adopters. She wants to know what kinds of dogs they owned in the past, whether there are kids in the house, if it's a multidog household, if they have a cat, and what they want from their pit. Once they answer those questions, Torres tries to match them up with the right pit bull. "Everybody thinks they want a Ferrari, when they really need a Yugo," she says. "The good thing about a pit is that some of them can be high energy, others just want to watch TV. "

Despite laws in many parts of the country that place restrictions on pit ownership, things might be looking up for the breed. "People are having a lot more empathy for the pit," says Torres. "They understand that this is a great dog that is enduring a lot of hell." If you want to rescue a pit bull, Torres's advice is simple: Make sure the dog is the right one for you, and you are right for it. Get the dog spayed or neutered, obey leash laws and any local regulations, and do ongoing training. That's smart advice for any dog owner, even if you want a yappy Shih Tzu.

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/220497

Chimpanzee Grief?

From national geographic
by Jeremy Berlin

The November issue of National Geographic magazine features a moving photograph of chimpanzees watching as one of their own is wheeled to her burial. Since it was published, the picture and story have gone viral, turning up on websites and TV shows and in newspapers around the world. For readers who’d like to know more, here’s what I learned as I interviewed the photographer, Monica Szczupider.
On September 23, 2008, Dorothy, a female chimpanzee in her late 40s, died of congestive heart failure. A maternal and beloved figure, Dorothy had spent eight years at Cameroon’s Sanaga-Yong Chimpanzee Rescue Center, which houses and rehabilitates chimps victimized by habitat loss and the illegal African bushmeat trade.

After a hunter killed her mother, Dorothy was sold as a “mascot” to an amusement park in Cameroon. For the next 25 years she was tethered to the ground by a chain around her neck, taunted, teased, and taught to drink beer and smoke cigarettes for sport. In May 2000 Dorothy—obese from poor diet and lack of exercise—was rescued and relocated along with ten other primates. As her health improved, her deep kindness surfaced. She mothered an orphaned chimp named Bouboule and became a close friend to many others, including Jacky, the group’s alpha male, and Nama, another amusement-park refugee. Szczupider, who had been a volunteer at the center, told me: “Her presence, and loss, was palpable, and resonated throughout the group. The management at Sanaga-Yong opted to let Dorothy's chimpanzee family witness her burial, so that perhaps they would understand, in their own capacity, that Dorothy would not return. Some chimps displayed aggression while others barked in frustration. But perhaps the most stunning reaction was a recurring, almost tangible silence. If one knows chimpanzees, then one knows that [they] are not [usually] silent creatures."
Sanaga-Yong was founded in 1999 by veterinarian Sheri Speede (pictured at right, cradling Dorothy’s head; at left is center employee Assou Felix). Operated by IDA-Africa, an NGO, it’s home to 62 chimps who reside in spacious, forested enclosures.
Szczupider submitted the photograph to Your Shot, a magazine feature that encourages readers to send in pictures they've taken. The best are published on the website and in the magazine.

Beyond ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’: Why Conservation Needs a Rethink

From Cool Green Science: The Conservation Blog of The Nature Conservancy
Written by Sanjayan

Of course this year’s Nobel Peace Prize got all the press — as that prize nearly always does. The Nobel Prize in economics, by contrast, went almost unnoticed.

That’s a double shame. First, because it was given to Dr. Elinor Ostrom of the Indiana University and Arizona State University — the first woman ever to win the economics prize.

And second, because Ostrom has devoted her career to demonstrating how a fundamental premise upon which most modern conservation strategies are built — the “tragedy of the commons” — is at times false.

More than 40 years ago, an ecologist from Texas named Garrett Hardin who had a gift for a well-turned phrase published an article called “The Tragedy of the Commons.” His central thesis was that any common resource — say an open pasture or woodlot — will be subject to ever increasing exploitation by individuals unwilling to organize or impose a cost to manage the system, eventually leading to accelerated erosion of the resource.

This premise has so influenced the conservation movement that conservationists have focused their strategies on either advocating government interventions (say, creating a national park or wilderness area) or using private enterprise (privately buying land, easements, etc.) to avert death by a thousand cuts.

But Ostrom’s work has shown that this “tragedy of the commons” does not always have to happen.

Her research finds that communities can and will impose substantial costs to themselves to sustainably manage a common resource if (a) the expected benefits of managing a resource are greater than the cost of investing in the rules to govern those benefits, (b) loss of short-term economic gains are offset, and (c) the potential of cheating is eliminated.

Reading her recent paper in Science magazine — “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems” — was like a flashlight being turned on during a night dive: My whole world was immediately illuminated.

In the piece, Ostrom outlines 10 key conditions or factors under which a local community will self-organize and impose rules or costs on itself in order to sustainably manage a resource for the long term — factors such as moderate territorial size, shared moral or ethical standards in the community, and an influential leader. (The full list of 10 is at the end of this post.) While achieving all 10 might seem daunting, I would bet that a broad survey of The Nature Conservancy’s field efforts would support her findings.

And here’s why those findings are revolutionary: Because conservationists have always worried about the long-term sustainability of our work — especially in poor places with little government presence and where money to fund our efforts will eventually tail off (and it always tails off — that’s the nature of fundraising).

But when we accept the applicability of Ostrom’s work to ours, then our theory of change — our job, if you will — has to change. Instead of defaulting to government intervention or private enterprise, we must now find ways to ensure that the key conditions of resource self-management are present…and where they are absent, to step in temporarily to fill the gap.

Ostrom’s Nobel Prize validates an approach that depends on empowering local communities, under some very specific conditions, to manage and care for nature — the true test of sustainability. Without it, we will always be dependent on an ever-needier pipeline of funds to support far-flung efforts.

It is high time for the conservation movement to pay attention to a prize the rest of the world largely ignored.

Ostrom’s 10 conditions:

1. Moderate territorial size — so there is an optimum size for the resource. Too big and its tough to self-organize; too small and it won’t provide enough income.
2. Scarcity or need must be present.
3. System dynamics need to be sufficiently predictable (e.g., pastoralists may organize at a big scale but not a small one because of rain unpredictability).
4. Stationary units of resources — e.g. trees or oysters are easier to deal with than highly mobile resources like an unregulated river.
5. Size of the group or community has to be considered (optimum group size)
6. An influential leader, previous organizational skills, and education are all necessary.
7. Shared moral and ethical standards and thus norms of reciprocity.
8. Knowledge of the socio-economic system — a common knowledge about the resources helps understand how a resource may generate slowly while a population grows rapidly.
9. Users dependent on or who attach a high value to the sustainability of the resource.
10. Collective-choice rules.

Degraded Borneo land to be restored to orangutans

 image from replantingtherainforests.com  

Article from the WWF facebook page (original article on www.panda.org ) 

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah: Almost 1000 hectares of degraded land in the area designated Heart of Borneo is to be restored as orangutan habitat, following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between WWF-Malaysia and the State of Sabah yesterday.

The five year memorandum for the project - made possible with RM4.35 million ($US 1.27 million) grant from the ITOCHU Corporation of Japan - was signed during a regional forum on ‘Enhancing forest eco-systems and corridors within the Heart of Borneo

The 967 hectare area is in the North Ulu Segama landscape of Sabah, where some orang-utan populations had become isolated due to a combination of the natural barrier of the Ulu Segama River and logging and other activities.

Poor quality habitat is expected to lead to further organgutan population declines.

Opening the forum, Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman, said the State was very serious about conserving its forests and very committed to the Heart of Borneo, adding that 250,000 hectares of forest had already been set aside for conservation.

However, he said financing remained a crucial subject. To this end he thanked the Malaysian Federal government for its contribution of RM5 million ($US 1.47 million) to the Sabah Forestry Department to kick-start programme implementation - but indicated more help was needed.

“It is the hope of the Sabah state government that ‘friends’ from European countries and the USA can lend support to this endeavour,” he said.

WWF’s Heart of Borneo Initiative Leader, Adam Tomasek, congratulated the Sabah state government’s commitment to the Heart of Borneo and emphasised his gratitude to Japan’s ITOCHU Group for its generous contribution.

“These funds are vital for the restoration of a high priority landscape and long-term viability for orangutans. Healthy forest ecosystems are a priority for the three country Heart of Borneo initiative, and Sabah is providing a strong leadership example of working with the international community to realize this goal”

"ITOCHU's support is a clear sign of Japanese interest in the Heart of Borneo and as host of the 2010 UN Convention on Biological Diversity conference we look forward to profiling this growing partnership between governments and private sector," Mr Tomasek said.

Sex difference in facial contrast

A sex difference in facial contrast and its exaggeration by cosmetics
Richard Russell

Perception 2009 volume 38(8) pages 1211 – 1219doi:10.1068/p6331

Abstract:

This study demonstrates the existence of a sex difference in facial contrast. By measuring carefully controlled photographic images, female faces were shown to have greater luminance contrast between the eyes, lips, and the surrounding skin than did male faces. This sex difference in facial contrast was found to influence the perception of facial gender. An androgynous face can be made to appear female by increasing the facial contrast, or to appear male by decreasing the facial contrast. Application of cosmetics was found to consistently increase facial contrast. Female faces wearing cosmetics had greater facial contrast than the same faces not wearing cosmetics. Female facial beauty is known to be closely linked to sex differences, with femininity considered attractive. These results suggest that cosmetics may function in part by exaggerating a sexually dimorphic attribute—facial contrast—to make the face appear more feminine and hence attractive.