Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe has brutally seized control of his country’s diamond fields and is using the profits from our precious wedding rings and jewelry to finance a vicious political militia.
The group of countries that regulate the global diamond trade are right now meeting in Namibia to decide whether to suspend Mugabe and stop him selling his blood diamonds on the world market.
We have just two days to persuade these countries to act - let’s get a flood of signatures on a petition and deliver it directly to the meeting in Namibia. Sign at the link below and forward this email to anyone who doesn’t want our gifts of love to finance hate:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/diamonds_for_love_not_hate
All diamond producing countries know that their profits are dependent on the brand reputation of diamonds, and that increasing awareness of “blood diamonds” threatens that brand. A massive global petition will show them that the diamond-buying public is demanding action.
Zimbabwe’s diamonds used to be mined by local people. But in the last several months, Mugabe’s thugs have brutally taken over, murdering up to 200 civilians. An international investigation in July found “horrific violence against civilians”.
The profits from these blood diamonds are being used to finance a political militia that has already killed thousands of Zimbabweans, and threatens the fragile unity government in the country. Letting Mugabe keep these diamonds could finance a whole new war.
All of us are learning the ways in which our decisions about what we buy and do can affect the lives of our fellow human beings half a world away. An engagement ring should be something given and worn out of love, let’s tell diamond regulators to keep it that way:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/diamonds_for_love_not_hate
With hope,
Ricken, Alice, Benjamin, Graziela, Luis, Milena, Paul, Ben, Paula, Pascal and the whole of the Avaaz team
PS:
Once you’ve taken action, vote for Avaaz on the influential Huffington Post “New Media Game-Changers” poll! http://www.avaaz.org/huffpo (vote 10 for Avaaz as the ultimate game changer)
Sources:
A Human Rights Watch report on the Zimbabwe mines:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/06/26/diamonds-rough-0
The Kimberley process report:
http://www.zimonline.co.za/Article.aspx?ArticleId=5303
Articles on the possible ban this week:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8337385.stm
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-02-zim-faces-possible-suspension-from-global-diamond-trade
More from Global Witness, a member of the Kimberley Process:
http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/861/en/campaigners_call_for_urgent_action_on_zimbabwe_blo
More on Zimbabwe’s political crisis:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6896171.ece
People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
Saturday’s International Day of Climate Action gave us overwhelming evidence of hope at a time of widespread despair on global warming.
Last month, scientists predicted a 6.3 degree rise in average temperatures — higher than previously estimated — by the end of this century, even if the strongest pollution-reduction targets proposed by the world’s leaders go into effect. (The most recent ice age, for context, was triggered by a 3 degree change in average temperatures.) The Obama administration, meanwhile, has been criticized for weakening its stance on the climate issue, and hopes are dimming for an international treaty at the December climate summit in Copenhagen. As Democrats struggle to pass a domestic cap-and-trade bill, partisan battles are increasingly shrill and contentious, casting doubt on the bill’s chance of passage anytime soon. Even if it were to pass, enviros have criticized the legislation as “woefully inadequate” and “less than worthless.”
Most of us are deaf to these laments. The more strident and dismal the climate battle becomes, the more the American public tunes out. We can’t ignore the science, but we’ve got to move past the partisan bickering, past the politics of doom and gloom, and focus on what’s going right. As Saturday’s event made clear, there’s a lot going right:
1. We are connected.
Online organizing and social media — Flickr, Twitter, YouTube, Skype, Facebook, blogs — are ushering in a new era of coalition-building and global climate outreach breathtaking in scope. These online tools “enable us to track the growing momentum on this issue,” 350.org organizer May Boeve told me. “That’s vital to movement building.” Daily twitters and blog posts on climate change number in the tens of millions — spreading information, rallying lobbyists, and stoking innovation. Al Gore, for one, has nearly two million followers on Twitter — more than Martha Stewart.
2. We have a target.
The most complex scientific problem humanity has ever faced has been distilled into a three-digit manifesto — 350. Transcending language and education barriers, this global target was spelled out on beaches, mountain tops, monuments, and town squares, in human bodies linked to human bodies.
3. We have youth.
Kids and students were a highlight of the 350 event — reflecting the youth climate movement that has been growing globally in recent years. In the US, the Energy Action Coalition has convened hundreds of thousands of students who are greening their campuses, lobbying state legislatures and Congress, and partnering with activists worldwide — members of the China Youth Climate Action Network, Khmer Youth Association, Accion Climatica Colombia, the Indian Youth Climate Network, among other groups. In place of the panda, they’ve have chosen for their symbol the green hard hat, representing a new era of green jobs.
4. We have diversity.
Saturday’s event produced the world’s first grand-scale portrait of the global climate movement-and most of them looked nothing like Al Gore. The images of activists across all economic strata in Mumbai, Instanbul, Cairo, Dhakam, Gaborone and well beyond made it clear that environmentalism is no longer the domain of the white, privileged Prius-and-polar-bear set.
5. We have a movement.
As the global climate movement diversifies, D.C.-based environmental groups have been joining forces with labor, veterans and religious groups in a broad coalition dubbed Clean Energy Works. The group is mobilizing organizers in 28 states and spending handsomely on television ads to promote climate policies that will transition America to a green economy and create millions of clean jobs.
6. We have action.
In the months leading up to the 350 event, governmental leaders of the Maldives Islands held a cabinet meeting underwater in scuba gear to expose the global warming threat. Greenpeace activists scaled the Houses of Parliament in London carrying “Change the Politics — Save the Climate” signs. Student activists blockaded the entrance to a coal plant in downtown Washington D.C. This is activism with a wow-factor — reminiscent of the 60s-era outreach that helped trigger a sea change in environmental policy.
7. We have faith.
Churches in the Presbyterians of America alliance tolled their bells 350 times. The target was also spelled out in signs draped across synagogues and mosques. Faith-based climate activism has been gaining ground in recent years, in particular the “creation care” movement spearheaded by evangelicals. With a membership of 45,000 churches and 7,000 megachurches, National Association of Evangelicals, for instance, is supporting mandatory carbon caps.
8. We have profit motive.
General Electric, Google, and Duke Energy are among a multitude of big-brand businesses positioning themselves to profit from a 350 ppm target —innovating climate solutions from electric cars to smart-grid components. We need these climate profiteers. To borrow and reinterpret a line from Thomas Edison: Corporate innovators are finally discovering what the world needs — and they’re proceeding to invent.
In a 1979 presidential address Jimmy Carter quoted an activist friend who said, “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying.” These words resonate today as we face so much despair and political paralysis on climate change. The good news is that the sweating, walking and praying has begun.
Amanda Little is the author of Power Trip: From Oil Wells to Solar Cells, Our Ride to the Renewal Future (Harper/HarperCollins Publishers).
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-little/eight-reasons-for-hope-on_b_336046.html


“Kandu is an unusual little dog. For one thing, he was born with no front legs. When they took him to be euthanized, the vet said the dog had too much heart and was just too full of life, so he turned him over to Evergreen Animal Protective League (EAPL) … I saw Kandu on the evening news and, along with about a hundred other people, called in to ask about adopting him. When I filled in the long application, I mentioned that our rescued Labrador, Bob, was involved in the Heeling Friends program at the local hospital. We thought Kandu would make a cool therapy dog. That idea must have been a plus for us because we were chosen … He does have a disability, but he certainly doesn’t think of himself as disabled. After completing the certification process for Heeling Pets, we committed to two years at the Yampa Valley Medical Center. I put his wheels on, and he cruises down the corridors, his roller-blade wheels flashing little lights. Staff members, visitors and patients all stop to say hello. This dog has got such great spirit that it seems to be infectious … In addition to seeing patients in their rooms, we often stop by the physical-therapy area. Recently we have been spending time there with 10-year-old Tyler, one of Kandu’s favorite people. Last summer, Tyler lost his feet and parts of some fingers from an illness. The first time we met, Tyler asked all about Kandu and held the little dog on his lap. Kandu snuggled down and would have happily stayed there all day. Tyler stroked him with a big smile. His mom said she hadn’t seen the boy smile for weeks.” (Photos: Strays to the Rescue - TIME)