text:
Useful Links
Righting Institute
- Date submitted: 1 Nov 2011
- Stakeholder type: Major Group
- Name: Righting Institute
- Submission Document: Download
Full SubmissionInput for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20 June 2012 A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OVERVIEW The alarming collapse of the biosphere which we are idly witnessing represents the greatest failure of governance of all time, one which places in serious jeopardy all human welfare, permanently. Many of the ecosystems on which we depend inextricably for life and its maintenance are in a state of such deep crisis that the very future of humanity is called into question. This crisis apparent scientifically in many aspects of the Earth system, and on multiple levels. The prospects for maintaining the forms of society in which the lives of most people are embedded and on which they are now completely dependent would appear impossible unless decisive and far-reaching action is taken with the utmost urgency to avert this unprecedented disaster now unfolding. All conventional development is rendered futile, short-term and meaningless in a context of large scale ecosystem collapse. Such outcomes destroy any advances so far achieved, and can only result in human suffering on a gargantuan scale, vastly beyond anything previously experienced. These are entirely the consequence of our own hubris, ignorance and misplaced priorities. Worse, ecosystem collapse on the scale which now seems imminent must be regarded as permanent on all meaningful time horizons. This means that not only present, but all future generations will be forced to suffer the consequences of the absolute folly which is being enacted and facilitated now by those invested with the authority to prevent it, and on whom rests an absolute duty to do so. Part 1 of this paper argues that such a collapse is inevitable under the present model of governance, being the unavoidable consequence of errors in the underlying paradigm, errors which are entirely obvious. These, in turn, are reflected in environmental governance mechanisms which are fundamentally misconceived as a consequence, and which can only result in ecological collapse, be it sooner or later. To date, the net results of the old paradigm have been a massive and continuous assault on the biosphere; and governance which in practice has done nothing other than fail to get to grips with a life threatening problem, to recognise it for the unprecedented crisis it represents, or to recognise it at all. In fact its primary manifestation has been to facilitate and legitimate the destruction taking place in the name of development, progress and economic growth. Instead, part 2 of this paper proposes a single, simple, transparent and deliverable governance framework as an indispensable expedient in addressing the ecological and humanitarian crisis unfolding. It would address the root causes of the destruction of the biosphere and, if effectively enacted and delivered, would furnish what is perhaps our very best chance of averting the irreversible catastrophe which hangs imminently before us. In contrast, it would seem that most, perhaps all, of the expedients and responses currently under consideration are embedded in the existing paradigms of environmental governance and of development, sustainable or otherwise. As a result, while they may alleviate or moderate particular aspects of the multiple crises we face and may well have great utility for that reason, they remain intrinsically incapable of averting large scale ecosystem collapse because they fail to address the problem coherently or comprehensively, as well as being rooted in a model that has failed catastrophically and is continuing to do so. The paper concludes with concrete recommendations for the outcome document intended to embed the proposed new paradigm in our global governance at every level: the UN, nationally, regionally, locally, in business, NGOs, and ultimately at the level of the individual. Only by changing our fundamental relationship with Earth at every level can we expect to have any hope of traversing the imminent ecological crisis benignly. PART 1 THE EXISTING GOVERNANCE PARADIGM LEADS INEVITABLY TO ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE AND HUMANITARIAN DISASTER A FINITE PLANET We live on a finite planet with a single life support system, the biosphere, upon which we have been absolutely dependent for our existence since life began. This situation is likely to continue indefinitely; at least until such time as we perfect either teleportation over galactic distances or time travel and discover as an alternative somewhere habitable, reachable, and where our presence in large numbers would be peaceably accepted. For a very long time we have been gradually dismantling that life support system because we are enamoured with the comforts, ostentations and fast-living lifestyles we are able to affect with the bits of it we remove. That rate of dismantling has been accelerating dramatically since industrialisation as a result of the exponential increase in the capacity to do that it has enabled. And still is. A BIOSPHERE ON THE CUSP OF INCIPIENT COLLAPSE Our biosphere is now in a state of deep crisis. On multiple measures - probably on all measures - we have already reached the point where the integrity of our life support system is critically compromised, to the extent that it is showing serious symptoms of partial or total collapse. This is the direct result of human actions, cumulative over time. Examples are well known and overwhelming in number. These include the alarming collapse of ocean ecosystems; the mass extinction episode commencing which we have brought upon ourselves directly as a result of our own folly; the global haemorrhaging of topsoil, loss of soil fertility, and loss of agriculturally productive lands; Desertification on a massive scale; disruption of the water cycle, depletion and contamination of water sources; the ubiquitous contamination of the biosphere; and, most prominently, climate change. Each one of these alone ought be recognised as a danger signal of the utmost gravity. In a world of objective governance, each one, alone, should already have called forth a decisive response to avert a calamity unfolding. To take a single example, it must be obvious that on a planet that is estimated to be loosing 1% of its topsoil annually1, for creatures which rely on that topsoil for most of their food, for oxygen, for purifying freshwater and moderating the water cycle, for its role in maintaining a stable climate, and for many material needs, the prospects even in the medium-term are catastrophic. Unless stemmed, the prospects for humanity surviving even a century would seem unlikely on that metric alone. Taken together, these represent an crisis of ultimate severity, the knell of impeding doom which should and must call forth absolutely decisive action at all levels, and with the utmost urgency. For such a collapse would undoubtedly cause untold suffering to human and nonhuman life forms on a scale that is almost unimaginable, and bring irreversible changes to the extent that a vast number of species would become extinct, quite possibly including homo sapiens sapiens. SUCH A COLLAPSE WOULD BE PERMANENT AND IRREVERSIBLE Much of the damage we are causing to the biosphere must be regarded as permanent and irreversible. Even at best, it is so long-term in nature that it will affect future generations permanently on all meaningful and foreseeable time horizons. ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE RENDERS DEVELOPMENT AS CURRENTLY CONCEIVED MEANINGLESS Further, its impacts upon civilisation would be so catastrophic as to render all more conventional political and policy priorities meaningless and futile. There can be no ?economic progress? under such a scenario, and what has so far been achieved would be destroyed or rendered useless. The very idea of development - of any type - under such a scenario is rendered meaningless. One is looking at a serious collapse of the planet?s ability to sustain human life which will destabilise existing modes of existence and cause incalculable misery. THE GREATEST FAILURE OF GOVERNANCE OF ALL TIME That we should find ourselves in such an existential predicament represents the greatest failure of governance of all time. The only other challenge we have faced which offered the prospect of permanent and irreversible damage to the biosphere on a global scale has been the prospect of all out nuclear war. There governance has so far proven adequate to prevent that eventuality arising. Here, it is not merely that this calamity has been allowed to arise. It not merely that human actions have actually set this in motion. Nor is it merely that now we understand the consequences of these actions we are continuing to prosecute them. It is that being well informed of the consequences, our governance is incapable of grasping the problem. Instead it is impotently allowing the worst case scenario to develop more or less entirely unchecked through sheer inaction. To continue exacerbating such a collapse ? which is the net outcome of current policy ? is objectively insane and suicidal. Given the impacts on present and future generations of humans, of other species, and on the biosphere as a whole, it is also immoral. THESE FAILURES ARE INHERENT IN THE EXISTING GOVERNANCE PARADIGM This absolute impotence in the face of a critical threat arises as an inevitable consequence of the existing paradigm of governance. Some important elements of this are: ? The prioritisation of the creation of wealth as measured in conventional economic terms over all other policy goals. ? That this prioritisation of wealth creation is inherent in the structure of environmental law, which has failed catastrophically, partially as a result. ? The Westphalian mindset, which inevitably results in states behaving narcissistically, acting for what is perceived as short-term advantage over other states viewed as competitors, even when subordination of their immediate priorities is in their best long-term interests, as well of the global community as a whole. ? This results in a further problem: the haphazard nature of environmental regulation when viewed globally. ? Serious flaws in governance as it relates to corporations with the result that in practice environmental protection is largely subordinated to corporate interests. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HAS FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY It is indisputable that environmental law has failed catastrophically ? we could not possibly be in this predicament if it were functioning even tolerably badly. The the reason it has done so is the result of fundamental beliefs and values embedded in environmental law as it currently exists. These include: ? that the exploitation and commodification of the biosphere should be maximised for human benefit ? that human welfare is maximised by so doing ? that the biosphere is infinitely resilient such that even the most gross impacts upon it can be absorbed without long-term negative impacts ? the presumption that exploitation and contamination of natural resources is benign unless scientifically proven otherwise ? that environmental regulation should only be used as a last resort. These are exacerbated by a failure to agree and implement effective regulation at the global level, and by the inconsistent and often incoherent pattern of regulation introduced by lower tiers of government that results. ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IS AD HOC, POST HOC AND PIECEMEAL In essence it results in systems of ecological governance and regulation that are adhoc, post-hoc and piecemeal. The inevitable outcome is that we are stumbling into ecological crises one after another because the means to avert them is absent. In contrast, sensible governance would demand environmental regulation to be permanently in place in anticipation. It is as practical a position as having to pass legislation to form a fire brigade after the fire has started and is well on the way to becoming an inferno. While still needing to assemble the expertise and wherewithal to design and build the fire engines after that... Accordingly we currently have a situation where environmental problems go entirely unaddressed other than at an extremely local level until such time as they are not only recognised as being seriously threatening by the scientific community, but have also been accepted as such - almost invariably with the greatest of reluctance - by the political community which holds a monopoly on the power to respond. Unfortunately that, in turn, is compounded by the sloth-like nature of the political response, which is the result of legislative systems based on a model developed and appropriate to a world which existed several hundred years ago. The result is that almost every threat is allowed to get entirely out of hand before anything starts to happen; and by the time what to do has finally been collectively decided, the problems are often approaching the point of being beyond control, requiring desperate measures to rein them in. It is all rather akin to refusing to accept you have an illness until it is already lifethreatening. It really is no way to run a planet. Dissecting it further, specifically the system is ad-hoc because in practice each problem is perceived as discrete so treated more or less in isolation. This is entirely a perceptual thing deeply rooted in the mindset of the dominant cultures. Thus we have a problem with fish populations, another with the emission of greenhouse gases, various problems concerning vehicles, with a scarcity of rare earth metals necessary to build enough wind turbines, with deforestation, with the horrendous extinction rates of species and with countless other things ecological. We fail to perceive that all of these problems emanate from the same source: a fundamentally flawed conception of our relationship with the planet compounded by a reductionist view of life, and the grossly misplaced set of values that results. Even if not perceived in isolation, the response almost invariably treats the perceived problem as such. So we have ineffective fishing quotas, but do nothing about the catastrophic deterioration of the marine environment; we have various localised measures on silencing vehicles, limit engine emissions but completely undermine the purpose by leave mileage entirely unregulated, and ignore most other forms of pollution such as the 25% of vehicle emissions which emanate from brakes, and so on. Taking the example of climate change, Kyoto 1 was concerned almost exclusively with greenhouse gas emissions. These were treated more or less in isolation; and only from certain sources, avoiding politically difficult and unpopular choices such as international aviation and shipping, the built environment, and, inevitably, those caused by consumers. It is post-hoc because we react exclusively to problems after they have emerged, almost invariably long after or way too long after, and only when forced to because they have become so serious it proves impossible to ignore them further without the most serious consequences. These two reasons combine to produce a piecemeal response, augmented by the massive propensity built into our ecological governance not merely to compromise, but to subordinate entirely ecological interests to economic and political ones. A further factor is the near universal imperative to poodle to consumers on account of their nasty reactions. The result is that measures are taken reluctantly, late, and are almost invariably watered down to please vested interests and minimise the impact on the electorate. This, unhappily, is self-defeating as the less impact they have on these groups, the less impact they have on the problem. The measures that result may impact the problem to a limited extent but frequently fail to halt it, let alone heal and rebuild the ecological wounds which have resulted, instead leaving a chronic condition which continues to deteriorate, though perhaps at a slower rate or less visibly. This is further aggravated by the widely generalised perception that once a measure has been taken to address a problem it is fixed, can be dismissed from the political agenda, left to the experts, technical people, bureaucrats and those directly affected, and general forgotten. Thus ineffective or partial responses tend to be accepted for long periods of time, during which the real situation continues to deteriorate. Finally, environmental regulation varies between different states in a manner which renders it haphazard, when what is required is a unified global system. If an activity or substance is environmentally damaging in one state, it almost invariably is everywhere. This piecemeal approach further undermines effective regulation because it presents states with an opportunity to seek advantage economically. If a state fails to regulate where others have, it gains a competitive advantage, so environmental regulation is resisted and a race to the bottom ensues. This pernicious practice could be entirely avoided were environmental standards agreed and implemented in common. FLAWED GOVERNANCE RELATING TO CORPORATIONS A fundamental causal factor is the very serious flaw that exists in governance as it relates to corporations. This manifests at all levels, both in society in general, and in environmental governance in particular. The fundamental problem lies in the governance of corporations themselves. The primary legal duty upon directors is to maximise profits on behalf of shareholders, which in most circumstances places them under a duty to avail themselves of any lawful opportunity to do so. This obligation is not tempered by any requirement to do so in an environmentally benign manner, nor to do so in one which maximises human welfare. Therefore the only constraints upon environmentally damaging activities arise as a result of: ? the expressed desire of a sizeable body of shareholders ? which is practice is rare ? marketing pressures as a result of adverse public opinion ? environmental regulation - which is an incomplete, weak, and poorly constructed net which corporations can to a large extent evade with ease. As a result, the relationships of corporations tend to be predatory by nature - with the natural world, and with other things, too. A second failure is the inappropriate influence corporations have been allowed to wield in political affairs. It has become apparent that this is now so pervasive as to question the extent to which democracy is still functioning. This influence is employed with its full force to oppose the introduction of environmental regulation, and to campaign for the repeal or watering down of that which has been enacted, because any such regulation remains an impediment to corporate profits. This is arguably a rational response by directors, given their primary legal duty. It would not appear to be so from any other perspective. Clearly the corporate behaviour that results is entirely incompatible with a sustainable human relationship with the biosphere. Closely related to this is corporate control of the media, which is heavily employed to condition the views of electorates in favour of the corporate exploitation of the biosphere and against environmental regulation, primarily by portraying it as a threat to economic progress and hence to the immediate welfare of individuals. A final aspect is corporate personhood, whereby corporations are recognised as persons before the law, and the corporate rights which are considered to attach to them as a result. This has enabled or facilitated many the corporate behaviours incompatible with a benign relationship with nature. Suffice to that in reality corporations are nothing more than legal entities, and exist only as legal documents. Each and every person with an interest in a corporation, be it the CEO, board members, shareholders, or employees, already has their full share of democratic rights as an individual, which they are free to exercise as they will. To effectively grant them further rights by virtue of being a corporation is entirely incompatible with democracy as it is normally understood. It is all the more so when the massively disproportionate political influence corporations bring to bear is concentrated in the hands of very few individuals. Accordingly this aspect of governance is extremely corrosive to our future prospects on many levels. In general, such concentration of power focussed exclusively on the pursuit of profit would seem highly unlikely to result in the desired goals of development being achieved. In terms of the environment, it seems reasonable to conclude that disaster on a global scale cannot be averted unless the governance of corporations is fundamentally revised such that they naturally behave in ways which are benign. LARGE SCALE ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT The inevitable consequence of these failures of environmental governance and law is ecosystem collapse on a vast scale. This must result because harmful activities will go unaddressed until they have developed into a major environmental problem, quite possibly for a considerable time further while the political will to act and the necessary science are assembled, or quite possibly not at all, because one or the other of these remains inadequate. This difficulty is exacerbated because the final response is almost invariably inadequate or ineffective as a result of political compromise, inadequate scientific understanding, or misdesign of policy. As a result, even at best the biosphere suffers a constant war of attrition as new, unregulated activities impact upon it until they are addressed by regulation, and possibly continue thereafter in a reduced form. In addition, sources of environmental damage which are seriously damaging on a global scale can remain unregulated or inadequately regulated for long periods. Obvious examples that have gone unregulated are emissions from aviation and international shipping, while those from power generation remain unregulated in large parts of the world. Examples of inadequate regulation are the speed limits for drivers which are at best only vaguely related to the various environmental consequences caused, and the patchwork nature of emissions covered by Kyoto 1. Given that the biosphere is not infinitely resilient and that recovery, where it occurs, is a slow process occurring on time scales of centuries or longer, sooner or later these cumulative impacts must result in serious collapse. As the incidence of these incursions is becoming ever greater as a result of the pace of technological development which is increasingly leaving regulation far behind, the prospects of sooner appear more likely than later, and that is borne out by the science. PART 2 RECONFIGURING THE PARADIGM When standing on the edge of an abyss with the ground starting to collapse under your feet, the only rational response is to retreat to safety as gingerly and rapidly as you possibly can. What is both insane and absolutely suicidal is to insist on taking further steps in front because that is the direction in which you are fixated on travelling and you somehow believe the support of the ground is irrelevant in that process. A RADICAL REVISION OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BIOSPHERE IS AN INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE FOR SURVIVAL Existing environmental governance shares the same mindset with the Chernobyl controllers who disregarded the alarm warnings and overrode the safety systems because they considered society would be too discomfited were they to shut down. Viewed more objectively, the only possible conclusion is that we are set on a course which can only lead to ecological collapse on a massive scale, and that that collapse is incipient. There is no choice but to change our paradigm concerning our relationship with the biosphere if we wish to survive. If we do not do so we are doomed to a terrible fate. DRAWING THE LINE It would seem indisputable that there is a finite limit to the amount of damage which can be inflicted on the biosphere before catastrophe ensues. Each human incursion produces a loss of ecological integrity. As this declines, a point must inevitably be reached at which the resilience of the ecology concerned collapses, causing the ecology itself to fail completely. We are very familiar with this process ? the formation of dust bowls and Desertification are excellent examples of the total collapse of previously productive ecologies, often robust ones in their natural state. Dead zones in the oceans are another. Viewed with this in mind, it is abundantly clear that ecosystems more or less globally are in a state of great stress. Many are showing signs of imminent collapse, and others are indisputably collapsing. Further, we know that through our own folly we have lined up further enormous stressors of a magnitude which will impact the biosphere globally and more or less permanently. This can only exacerbate the problem most gravely. Climate change and mass extinction are very obvious examples which will cause enormous additional stresses on a global basis, the consequences of which must be regarded as permanent and irreversible. We have no way to reinvent extinct species, nor to remove CO2 from the atmosphere safely, economically or with predictable and risk free outcomes. At what point each of these is likely to cause ecological collapse on a grand scale is merely a question of judgement. That they have the capacity to do so is indisputable. Acting simultaneously, we must expect synergistic effects to be pervasive such that the critical point will arise earlier still. PRIORITIES TO AVERT INCIPIENT DISASTER Faced with these facts, we have no option but to conclude that we are already very heavily in the danger zone in this respect, and must act with the greatest of expediency to repair the damage and cease activities which have given rise to it on any significant scale. If we wish to safeguard our future, it is imperative that the paramount goal of governance must now be to prevent the line at which ecological collapse becomes inevitable from being crossed, while acting with the greatest urgency to facilitate ecological recovery, at least until such time as it is certain that resilience has been robustly re-established. The only rational response, therefore, is to immediately cease to add to the causes of ecological collapse by contributing nothing further to the stresses already inflicted on the biosphere, while acting to heal the distress. This can be effected by adopting robust and uncompromised policy responses which deliver that outcome universally. First, that means we must accept - immediately and without equivocation ? our permanent and absolute dependency on the biosphere for life itself and all its necessities. Second, we must fully recognise the biosphere's vulnerability in the face of human interventions. Third, we must immediately place the maintenance and amelioration of ecological integrity as the primary determinant of all policy. Fourth, we must introduce with the utmost urgency a seriously robust policy framework which brings a halt to all activities giving rise to this crisis as rapidly as can be expedited without serious human distress. Fifth, that framework must be simple, transparent and able to address all threats to the environment immediately they arise. In concrete terms, it means we must now learn to live on what we already have, in order to leave what remains of the biosphere viable for the life support services it provides and to allow the best chance of recovery. That is the line that must now be drawn. Absolutely, universally, and urgently. To an unquestioning mind thoroughly marinated in the values of consumer culture that may sound an entirely unacceptable prospect. Viewed dispassionately, it is an absolute prerequisite of survival. If we do not make this shift, and very swiftly, our future would seem sealed. Our planet is finite; we have nowhere else to go. It is indisputable that at least some part of it must be left intact (or as near to it as we can now achieve given the all-pervasive nature of the damage already inflicted) to fulfil the ecological services we are absolutely dependent upon for life and for survival: the provision of a breathable atmosphere, food, water and a stable climate seeming prerequisites in this respect. So that line has be drawn at some point if we intend to survive. It is just a question of where and how. All the indications are that we are already perilously overdue in doing so. On scientific measures we are far, far adrift. Our situation would appear hopeless unless we immediately come out of denial, accept its calamitous nature, and react intelligently and with all the power at our disposal. However unwelcome the prospect may be, that line must be drawn. Unless we do so with the utmost urgency and in a manner which delivers universally we predestine ourselves for assured destruction. Viewed in those terms, the policy framework proposed is actually very mild. Essentially it constrains us to live on what we already have. To say enough is enough. To accept that we already have more than sufficient resources at our disposal for all to live well and to live happily. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY MUST BE ADOPTED AS THE PRIMARY DETERMINANT OF ALL POLICY Ecological integrity is the scientific measure of the health of an ecosystem. It can be assessed qualitatively on numerous metrics. Taken as a unity, our crisis is one of collapsing ecological integrity. All its component crises, such as climate change, Desertification and loss of biodiversity, are simply different manifestations of that problem. This measure must now be placed at the absolute centre of all policy. We must recognise that all other priorities which have hitherto predominated are secondary: without life and the means to support it, they are entirely hypothetical and, in policy terms, evaporate without trace. From this it does not take much consideration to appreciate the folly of our existing paradigm of governance, which is presiding over catastrophic declines in ecological integrity on a global scale, and can only deliver that outcome. A new one is the essential prerequisite for successfully traversing this crisis. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY AS THE NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE The expression of the new paradigm in terms of governance is very simple. It consists of three principles. These merely express what must be observed to live sustainably, in all circumstances. In its pure form these are: Actions which harm the integrity of an ecology are unlawful Actions which enhance the integrity of an ecology are lawful Actions which are ecologically neutral are permitted only where they are necessary and no more benign alternative exists This insight is not original. It merely gives expression to the principles which are common to the indigenous societies which have succeeded in living benignly with the biosphere over many millennia ? possibly 40,000 years or more in the case of the Australian Aboriginals, 14,000 years or so by the various American Indian nations, and many others. It is also more or less ubiquitous in the more elevated teachings of spirituality in all its forms, and does no more than articulate in general terms the principles on which all genuinely spiritual and ecological lives are predicated (indeed if there is a distinction). Nonetheless it is an entirely practical proposition that deals exclusively with scientifically measurable realities and which demands no belief other than in objective reality. In contrast, all civilisations which have adopted the domineering, exploitative attitude towards the biosphere which appears to be closely correlated with agriculture beyond the subsistence scale have been of much shorter duration, and have often come to a difficult end as a result of ecological collapse. Historically these collapses have been relatively localised. In the case of our mass, globalised, industrialised society, it would appear the prospects of it enduring much more than 300 years would currently seem slim. More critically still, the extreme power to disrupt the biosphere at its disposal places in jeopardy the future viability of the biosphere as a whole, at least in terms of anything we are used to and capable of sustaining us in existing numbers. LEARNING FROM INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE Given that the indigenous peoples are the only cultures on the planet with a track record of living sustainably, whilst dominant cultures appear to have one only of destroying themselves in short order, it is instructive to contrast the different approaches. The fundamental features of governance seen in sustainable indigenous cultures are that it is: ? embedded in the values system such that actions which are ecologically destructive do not form a part of the culture so are rarely contemplated ? ecologically destructive acts are subject to social mores or taboos ? comprised of simple operating principles ? which are universally applicable and can be applied to any circumstance arising ? these are known, comprehended, observed and enforced by all members of society ? and applicable equally and to all ? remediation is immediately accessible, and by all ? with an emphasis on remediating the problem, not on punishing, isolating or alienating those responsible. The essence is a simple, streamlined form of governance that can deal effectively with any circumstance that arises, when it arises, equitably, and with the support of the majority. As a result destructive acts can be addressed quickly before they get out of hand. In contrast, dominant forms of society have adopted a reductionist form of environmental regulation in which: ? everything is permitted unless explicitly regulated, no matter how destructive ? no social mores are applicable ? is unknown or opaque to most citizens ? is largely irrelevant in their thinking, and considered to be so ? is viewed as a cost and impediment ? is widely regarded ambivalently at best, if not with hostility ? is not considered to be a benign and necessary part of the culture fundamental to all, to be defended by all in their own interests ? is micro-managed on a case by case basis ? and which produces a system that fails through its own complexity. This model dissociates members of society from the consequences of their actions and of responsibility for defending their environment from incursion by others. It must be obvious that regulation can never keep abreast with the development of new technology, the application of existing technology into new areas, or even geographic mobility of harmful activities. All the less so, given the medieval forms of governance more or less ubiquitously practised by modern societies. Indeed, it is inevitable that the gap will continuously widen, unless a new approach such as the one proposed is taken. The biosphere suffers constant attrition as a result. Striking current examples include nanotechnology, biotechnology and genetically modified organisms, all of which are unregulated or inadequately regulated at present and are likely to remain so for a considerable period at great risk to the biosphere, as well as to human beings more directly. This can only be addressed by replacing or superimposing a framework which is universal in application, is simple, transparent, under which remedy is immediate, and which can be embedded in the culture and its values system. THE NEW PARADIGM IN TRANSITIONAL FORM Clearly that paradigm cannot be introduced instantaneously into dominant society without excessive dislocation. Therefore it would need to be expressed in a transitional form: Actions which harm the integrity of an ecology are unlawful unless subject to transitional exemption Actions which enhance the integrity of an ecology are permitted Actions which are ecologically neutral are permitted unless subject to transitional measures In addition, a set of secondary principles would be required. Both these and the transitional arrangements are discussed in more detail below. THE NEW PARADIGM AS A POLICY INSTRUMENT Despite its simplicity, this set of principles is sufficient to cover any ecological or environmental issue which may ever arise, whether currently conceived or unimagined. In that lies its elegance in terms of policy. Also its strength. It is universal, transparent, equitable, tangible, and readily comprehensible in both justification and application by more or less anyone. Critically, it finally draws a line beyond which we cannot go. That is its essential purpose, indispensable in any sane strategy for a future. Universal because it applies to any situation that may ever arise, and to all. This results from framing the criteria in terms of the consequences of an action rather than the action itself. A common pitfall with environmental regulation has been to place the focus on the action giving rise to the consequence rather than the consequence itself. If an action was not anticipated at the time of regulation or its consequences unforeseen, under such a regime it slips through the net. Major problems also arise when the effects have been misunderstood or their magnitude misjudged in the model employed. Critical policy failures of this type are avoided by concentrating entirely on measurable effects. Transparent because its simplicity provides no possibility to hide from justice behind complexity; by being readily comprehensible by all; and because frequently the cause and the legal responsibility arising from it will be obvious to any observer as a result. Equitable because it applies equally to all, as much to the individual emptying their used sump oil down a drain, as to the Athabasca oil sands, or oil exploration in the Arctic. In general, what is permitted for one is permitted for all, although limited exceptions will be necessary based exclusively on necessity in the case of acts affecting a sensitive areas, together with a de minimis rule applicable to individuals. This is discussed further below. Tangible because it deals exclusively with real, scientifically measurable events, rather than abstract concepts such as rights. Also because the events it deals with - ecological enhancement or degradation - are often readily apparent even to the untrained eye, as may be the actions from which they result, and possibly the actors responsible. As time passes, the effects of policy framed accordingly should allow ecosystems to recover and strengthen, because, leaving aside transitional exemptions, all permitted actions either positively facilitate that end, or at worst are neutral. This should also gradually augment the scale of ecosystems, as the contraction and abandonment of certain activities together with restoration returns land to a more natural state. To a lesser extent this should also apply to the built environment, augmented by the greening of cities and so on. In turn, these responses should help to stabilise climate by sequestering CO2, reducing the planet?s albedo and moderating the water cycle. SECONDARY PRINCIPLES The primary principles define the scope of the framework in practice. A number of secondary principles are required to ensure these are maximally effective: Enabling legislation must be commensurately simple and transparent Standing in respect of ecological matters is universal Recourse to justice and final decision must be rapid and timely The cost of seeking legal remedy must be reasonable, affordable and must not act as a deterrent, nor prevent cases being brought to court or pursued to final decision Guilty parties must meet the full costs of remediation plus the full value of any loss of ecological value or function resulting from their actions, be it permanent or temporary, entirely separately from any fines and other punitive measures imposed. The second means that everyone has the right to pursue infringements of the convention in law. It means that anyone can take a case to court to protect any natural entity or ecosystem. This is vital so that violators cannot evade the law through cosy or intimidatory relationships with government, politicians, regulators or enforcement agencies, or through plain lack of public resources needed to pursue offenders. It is also necessary to close down another way that polluters presently avoid being held accountable: by removing the necessity to have suffered some kind of loss or have some other tangible personal interest in a matter to be able to pursue a case in law. The first, third and fourth go hand in hand with this, maximising access to justice so anyone can bring a case to defend ecological integrity without being intimidated by costs, technicality, or the obscurity of the law. The fifth is so that the remedy is effective in protecting the biosphere in practice, not just hypothetically. It also means that those damaging the environment know they will have to meet the entire costs of the damage they are causing by externalising costs. This is essential to eliminate situations where damaging activities remain profitable even after cases go against them because the net revenues arising exceed the damages imposed, including the situation where the anticipated fines can be factored into the cost and pricing structures and thus passed on to the consumer. That outcome is likely to occur more and more frequently under existing regulation as resources become scarcer and therefore more valuable. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given as to at what point activities should be criminalised, and to the degree of personal as well as corporate responsibility of those involved. SHIFTING THE PARADIGM AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY The objective of this framework is not merely to change the way in which people behave towards the environment by altering the legal framework within which they operate. It is to effect a renaissance in their entire relationship with the natural world. This is an fundamental prerequisite for sustainability which has been largely overlooked in existing policy expedients. Ordinarily, environmental regulation may affect behaviour by making things more expensive or unavailable, or by prohibiting a certain action, but it tends to do so in an entirely practical way which rarely touches our values. Despite emission regulations on vehicles, for instance, drivers (in the main) still consider themselves to be virtuous people and may smile and wave at pedestrians in a spirit of bonhomie accordingly. Viewed dispassionately, they are actively assailing the health of those same pedestrians at least as actively as a smoker in an enclosed environment, whilst simultaneously damaging the physical and biological environments, causing farreaching stress and damage through noise, vibration, and possibly light pollution, all of which may adversely affect very large numbers of people, other living beings the local ecology, and the biosphere in general. A day will come when drivers are treated with as much opprobrium as smokers, and quite objectively, but the point here is that existing environmental regulation has done nothing to challenge the mindset of the motorist and its conceptualisation of motoring as a perfectly acceptable and respectable thing to do. Criminalising ecocide is extremely important in changing the way we treat the environment and needs to be introduced as rapidly as possible. However it will make little difference to the way in which individuals relate to it at a personal level, although they may well support the measure wholeheartedly out of a sense of justice or retribution. Just as war crime legislation does not affect them personally because they have no desire to commit war crimes and probably will almost certainly never be in a position to do so, it is much the same with ecocide. It will be considered as something apt only for those in the boardroom and their servants who carry out the crime in practice, so make little difference to how the great mass of the population conceptualise their personal relationship with the environment, and their behaviour in regard to available choices is likely to alter little accordingly. In contrast, the purpose of the proposed framework is to place ecological considerations centrally in every environmentally significant decision we make. This would first find widespread expression in decision-making in the workplace and administratively, though the framework, however implemented, would also place responsibilities on individuals from the outset. Over time, the ubiquity of the practice should seep in as individuals begin to recognise that they agree with that prioritisation, or if not merely through sheer habituation, until it becomes second nature to consider the environmental impact in every decision people make, and at every level. In this way it would foster a sea change in prevalent attitudes, from one where the environmental consequences of actions are in practice almost always totally discounted in favour of consumer values even by committed environmentalists, to one where those consequences become primary in all our decision making processes. This change is an absolute prerequisite if we are to successfully navigate the multiple catastrophes unfolding upon us. POLICY INSTRUMENTS A range of policy instruments can be envisaged to give effect to the framework proposed. These expedients would be employed to accelerate ecological recovery in order to stabilise the biosphere as quickly as possible, including front loading where necessary. Obvious measures to this effect would be measures to: implement large scale ecosystem restoration convert land to ecologically more benign uses allow land to revert to a natural state or accelerate it in so doing combat deforestation and forest degradation safeguard threatened species lower demand localize human activities transition to low impact lifestyles re-establish community at a practical level, including the pooling of resources recover self-reliance and sustainability skills convert dirty technologies to clean alternatives. A full range of disincentives would also need to be made available. These would range from fiscal measures, limits on supply (quotas and caps) and demand (rationing), fines and other penalties, through to criminalisation, confiscation and the like. At the far end of these would be the criminalisation of ecocide to deal with the most gross and exploitative excesses. TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Clearly a change of this magnitude cannot reasonably be brought in overnight. Transitional arrangements would be necessary to allow an orderly transition, to provide time for the necessary learning, investment, social and infrastructure adjustments and so on. During this period the incentives would be front-loaded and maximised to encourage change as rapidly as possible in order to maximise the chances of restabilising the biosphere before critical thresholds are passed. Whilst ecocide and the penalties for the most blatant and cynical exploitation of the environment would come into full force immediately, lesser incursions would be subject to gradually tightening regimes to allow a reasonable opportunity to adjust to the new framework. Thus less damaging activities might initially be subject only to fiscal measures to raise prices and costs at the expense of profitability. The next stages might be caps and rationing, followed by direct financial penalties which start light but escalate with time until the activity becomes unviable. Alternatively where an activity needs to be curtailed more quickly, prohibition and criminalisation may be introduced at an early stage. EXEMPTIONS In practice most human activities, at least as practised outside of indigenous communities, have a negative ecological impact. The framework must take account of this to be workable. It would do so in three ways. First, there would be a small and limited exemption for each individual to allow the ecological equivalent of a personal space. In practice this would mainly be accounted for by common sense and the disregarding of impacts that are insignificant. However where individuals resort to overtly destructive acts or their impacts become significant on an ecological scale the appropriate measures would apply with full force. Second, there would need to be a system of permitted activities on a prescribed basis, defined by real need rather than merely demand, profitability or political expediency. An example might be the manufacture of computers, being justified by the massive augmentation in knowledge and communication they allow which in turn makes for better informed and co-ordinated action and less need to travel, resulting in positive impacts environmentally. Public services and public transport are others. Third, during the transitional period at least, it may be necessary to view impacts from a marginal or net perspective, meaning an activity that is environmentally damaging but significantly less so than one it replaces or displaces would be permissible, if not encouraged. Such an activity could nevertheless be subject to sanctions to encourage further transition to truly benign alternatives, either immediately or at a later stage of the transitional arrangements. EQUITY Equity will clearly be major policy challenge. How to distribute, or, more correctly, redistribute available resources such that all have at minimum sufficient for living safe, meaningful, healthy lives is a crucial question in resolving the world?s multiple problems. But this problem must be tackled anyway. It is transparently obvious that our historical and present development path has failed catastrophically in this respect, and failed the poor in so doing. It would also seem indisputable that that goal cannot be reached within the context of a failing or deteriorating biosphere. If we are serious about tackling these issues, the first priority must be to stop ecological degradation. In his Blueprint for a Safer Planet Nicholas Stern courageously and very clearly shows that the solutions to our environmental and development issues are inextricably linked, that crucially we cannot solve one without the other. Human suffering leads directly to ecological destruction as the only option left to people deprived of access to other resources. So a vital element in both stabilising the biosphere and making the framework equitable would be mechanisms to transfer funds from rich, ecological debtor nations to developing and least-developed nations to recompense for the ecological services they provide, and to compensate for the loss of development potential by forgoing commercial exploitation of their ecologies in a manner which the developed nations have already enjoyed. This was probably the decisive issue in leading to the failure of the Copenhagen Summit, as well as the most divisive, and has remained highly contentious since. While not attempting to downplay to any extent the scale of the challenge in this respect, this framework could offer considerably more scope for redistribution within its mechanisms than the UNFCCC does. Given that it would apply universally, if carefully designed, the sums raised by the various disincentive measures could be substantially larger than those available under the UNFCCC proposals - the latter being of limited scope, and applying only to a limited range of economic activities. Making these funds available for this purpose should help considerably in meeting all goals: to get a binding agreement in place quickly, to stabilise the biosphere, and to address glaring equity issues and the human suffering which results. CONCLUSIONS It would seem beyond all reasonable doubt that unless the multiple ecological catastrophes which are currently unfolding are averted, all existing gains in development will be swept away in the foreseeable future. In addition, billions of people currently enjoying acceptable standards of living are likely to be thrown into a state of severe poverty, or worse. For all policy considerations, all such ecological declines must be considered as permanent and irreversible. This cannot be allowed to happen. It is absolutely incumbent upon this Conference and upon governments globally to act to avert such an outcome. This requires that they do so immediately, with absolute decisiveness, and with the maximum of their powers. The time for words, mere resolutions, further negotiations, or bureaucratic delay is long past. This crisis has merely been allowed to escalate to a level at which, even with all the combined resources at our disposal - intellectual, physical and economic - the prospect of averting it now hangs precariously in the balance. Further delay or prevarication is likely to result in critical thresholds being passed which will render the possibility of a benign outcome increasingly unlikely, if not impossible. This crisis cannot be averted merely by further words or further pieces of paper. It is entirely the result of concrete actions taken by human beings at every level, primarily as individuals, or on their behalf by organisations. Therefore only concrete actions can avert it. Only in acting differently, and consistently so, is their the slightest chance of averting terrible catastrophe. For many, and for developed world consumers in particular, the changes which are an absolute prerequisite for successfully traversing this crisis represent a major change in values and behaviour. For this reason it is imperative that governments take a strong and unequivocal lead and stand united on this, globally. Now is the time when petty national interests must be abandoned forever in the interests of the common good. This is only likely to result from decisive leadership at the top, crucially by the United Nations, and by heads of state acting united in concert. If this does not happen now, the prospects for us all are very bleak indeed. Therefore the outcomes document must fully reflect this new and realistic understanding of our predicament. It must announce to the global community that a radical shift in behaviours and values is now demanded of us. It should also emphasis that such a change may actually represent an improvement in the real and perceived quality of life for many, if not all, as opposed to the false metrics we have been chasing haplessly for so long which have been a primary cause of the predicament we now face. Therefore the outcomes document must make a powerful and unequivocal statement that: 1 Humanity is a part of the biosphere and is totally dependent upon it for life, and for the maintenance and continuation of life, and is likely to remain so for the eternal future. 2 That dependency applies to each of us as individuals, and as collectives in all forms. 3 The biosphere is in a state of deep crisis that poses a serious threat to the future well being of all of us, permanently, and which jeopardises the prospects of all future generations. 4 This crisis is already impacting with serious adverse consequences on the lives of billions of people. 5 Therefore we must recognise that the well-being of the biosphere is the primary determinant in our welfare and our future well-being. 6 So henceforth its integrity and maintenance must take precedence in all human decision making at every level, from the individual to the global community. 7 Accordingly ecological integrity must now be prioritised before economics in all decision making. 8 Perpetual growth on a finite planet is an impossible and most dangerous myth which must be abandoned instantly if we wish to avert the calamity for which it has predestined us. 9 Hence a rapid transition from a consumer-based to a conserver-based society is an absolute prerequisite for a benign outcome, and must now become the top priority in governance at all levels. To give practical expression to these aims, the Conference should resolve to implement as a matter of ultimate priority either ? a United Nations Declaration of Ecological Integrity; or ? a framework convention on ecological integrity which would subsume all existing environmental, economic and other UN treaties and conventions to give effect to the three fundamental principles outlined in this paper at every level of governance and decision making, globally. This should incorporate the secondary values and transitional arrangements set out above. It is critical that such a declaration or convention should be signed and ratified as a matter of the utmost urgency in order to signal to society at large that this change is unavoidably necessary and must happen with the utmost speed. To avoid the possibility of delay it should first be negotiated and ratified on the basis of the principles alone, which would seem common to all of humanity and indisputable to any reasonable person, in order to decouple it from negotiation of the delivery mechanisms which, on the basis of experience, are likely to be protracted and delayed by narcissistic behaviour on the part of member states. The statement must include an absolute commitment to provide effective mechanisms to address equity issues, not merely so that new ones do not develop under the new framework, but so that existing ones are ameliorated. With careful design this should be possible within the mechanisms proposed. It should also recognise the critical importance of accelerating our scientific understanding of ecological integrity and make funding available on a major scale to make this happen. Particular support should be given to refining the techniques for assessing the health and integrity of ecosystems, especially concerning the critical threshold at which ecosystem decline commences. Institutional arrangements must be established to pool this work internationally, with the objective of establishing a single yet comprehensive set of methodological tools and standards which must be applied universally and consistently. To conventional thinking, such a proposal may appear ambitious, possibly unrealistic, perhaps utopian. What is indisputable, however, is that the critical threshold of large scale ecological collapse exists: to remain viable as a species, humanity must remain on the safe side of that line, or perish. However inconvenient the changes this demands of us may be perceived to be, what is ultimately more unrealistic is to persist a moment longer in the idea that our existing models of governance and environmental regulation can possibly deliver any other outcome than the ultimate calamity impending. Our present trajectory is very directly for self-destruction, and that outcome is intrinsic in the doctrinaire and outdated beliefs of the existing paradigm. Neither is it realistic to posit that we shall desist as a result of choices made voluntarily by individuals and corporations. There is simply no evidence for this; rather, a massive body to the contrary. Therefore that line must be drawn. It must be drawn consciously; and implemented via foolproof mechanisms that ensure it will never be violated. We must either develop absolutely robust governance and policy instruments which prevent us from crossing that threshold, and very quickly; or face widespread, perhaps general, collapse and human misery on an unprecedented scale. That is our present destiny. To deny that realisation is the most unrealistic position of all. If the mechanism proposed here is not the means, then it is incumbent on every one of us to find a better one, and quickly enough for it to be agreed and set in motion at Rio+20. This document is a first draft written hurriedly over the last few days which would not normally be considered fit for submission or publication, and is only submitted in view of the imperative of the situation. Profuse apologies are proffered to all recipients for all imperfections accordingly. The Righting Institute 01 November 2011


text:
Rated 5 out of 5 by 4 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5 by Razza Many uses!!! I bought this oil for cooking and found it has so many other uses. I put some in a squirt bottle in my bathroom and use it for an all over moisturizer when I get out of the shower. I use it on my face. I drizzle it on my dogs dry kibble to help keep their coat soft and shiny. My first bottle is gone already. I am ordering more than one bottle next time. LOVE IT! April 25, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5 by sylvia avocado oil Fantastic Flavor, the aroma is awesome, makes a salad taste Awesome!!! cucumbers/onions dish Great !!!! March 15, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5 by tinabellco Great for your skin!!! My mom's a massage therapist and turned me on to this. I'm a freak about my face (been using high end products for 20+ years) and this stuff is amazing! It has completely replaced my high end skin creams. I also get severe dry skin patches during the winter (I have prescription creams for it) and this prevents the dry patches My skin has never been softer! It goes on a little oily, but soaks in pretty quickly so you can use it morning or night and still put clothes on afterwards. It doesn't have a smell either. I have normal to slightly sensitive skin. My mom uses it on her clients all of the time and I haven't heard any complaints. March 12, 2014
Rated 5 out of 5 by LStyron Healthy oil !! I really liked the taste and the fact that it's good for high heat such as stir fry and the taste is light if you want to put it on salad or use it in baking. June 14, 2013
1-4 of 4

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I have an old cluster [30 nodes, specs on each node[2GHz processor, 512MB RAM]]. The nodes have Debian 2.0 installed and I want to upgrade all nodes to Debian 5.0 stable version.
Is there a painless way to do it other than taking each node out, attaching it to a monitor to it and installing by DVD ?
The cluster is used mainly for computation purposes, so we don't need any desktop packages on it, only development libraries and programming languages.
Can anybody point me in a helpful direction to proceed.
Thanks a lot.


text:
Designer: Ann Anglim
Theme: Melancholia
Year: 2013
Melancholia speaks of loneliness and suffering. It demonstrates how clothing wrapped around the body may appear stifling. The beauty in the layers, the density in colors, and the textures remind us that hiding is a form of survival. When the darkness approaches, we find our way to the light.
Designer: Ann Anglim


text:
Youreurope.be, your website. Launch of the European Year of Citizens in Belgium
Belgian citizen, European citizen, we will be celebrating your 20th anniversary, the anniversary of European citizenship, in 2013. Travelling, studying or working, having access to healthcare, surfing more cheaply with smartphone all over Europe, etc. These are just a few specific examples of the sometimes discreet impact Europe has on our daily lives.
To help you be better informed about your rights and to encourage you to enter into a dialogue, the Belgian government launched a website on 10 January 2013 that is specifically about the European Year of Citizens: www.youreurope.be. The aim of the site is to inform you and to bring together all of your events, questions, opinions, experiences, photos and videos for a whole year. Let us give shape together to the Europe that you want by 2020!
Take part in the discussions!


text:
Samuel Lee Johnson
Position: RB
Height: 6-0 Weight: 223 lbs.
Born: September 22, 1952 in Burlington, NC
High School: High Point CentraL
College: North Carolina (school history) (Johnson college stats)
Drafted by the San Francisco 49ers in the 4th round (90th overall) of the 1974 NFL Draft.
Weighted Career AV (100-95-...): 9 (7518th overall since 1950)
Other SR Links: College Football at Sports-Reference.com


text:
Photos by Seher Sikandar
The N.E.R.D. show in San Francisco was packed, and Pharrell assured the crowd that the elusive Chad Hugo was inside the venue, somewhere. They played songs from their first three albums, plus a couple new tracks — can't wait for that upcoming 4th album!
Classic Pharrell:


text:
Oct 31st 2012
Local Haunt: Not just witches at Gardner Village
Archibald Gardner, one of Utah's original settlers, actually got the first commercial water rights in Utah for his West Jordan Mill—now Country Furniture & Gifts at Gardner Village. Some say he's still there, looking after the property. Read More


text:
First-Place Tigers Rally Past Penn, Stay Unbeaten In Ivies With 38-26 Win
BOX SCORE | GAME HIGHLIGHTS | CONDENSED GAME (Subscription)
To unseat the reigning Ivy League champion, you better be ready for everything. Penn, winners of three of the last four Ivy titles, gave Princeton everything today during its Homecoming game at Franklin Field.
Princeton took it, and then took a little bit for itself.
Six turnovers, including a 59-yard interception return for a touchdown by Elijah Mitchell, and an efficient second half by the Tiger offense, led Princeton to a 38-26 comeback win over Penn Saturday afternoon in front of 21,214 at Franklin Field. The win keeps Princeton alone in first place in the Ivy League, though Harvard remains one game back with two games to go.
Trailing 23-17 at the half, Princeton outscored Penn 21-3 in the final 30 minutes to claim its first win over the Quakers since 2006. Junior quarterback Quinn Epperly, who completed 32 of 45 passes for 268 yards and two touchdowns, rushed for a pair of one-yard scores and hit Connor Kelley on a 14-yard post for the back-breaking final touchdown in the 12-point win.
The Tigers trailed 16-0 early in the second quarter in a game highly reminiscent of the Week 5 win at Brown, when Princeton trailed 17-0 and then scored the final 39 points in a decisive victory. There was no panic on a Princeton sideline that believed both sides of the ball would execute far better for the rest of the game.
And execute they did.
Princeton's top four receivers each had at least five catches, including a career-high 12 grabs for 68 yards by senior Roman Wilson. Both Wilson and junior Matt Costello (5-40) went over the 100-career-catch mark in the game, though it was Kelley and fellow junior Seth DeValve who scored touchdowns and grabbed several crucial third-down conversions for the Tigers.
Princeton was held under 100 yards rushing for the first time all season, though Epperly still managed 53 yards on 13 carries and a pair of scores. His second, which opened a 31-23 lead early in the fourth quarter, was set up when DeValve made a leaping 24-yard catch just along the Princeton sideline.
The Princeton offense was able to take control of the game in the second half because the defense simply didn't allow Penn to grab full control in the first half. Mitchell's return for a touchdown was the highlight of six turnovers, three of which led to scores and a fourth that ended Penn's final drive.
Princeton also got interceptions from Anthony Gaffney and Mike Zeuli. Senior Jason Ray recovered a pair of fumbles, while Zeuli recovered a third. Senior safety Phillip Bhaya led Princeton with seven tackles, while both sophomores Matt Arends and John Hill had six apiece. Both Mitchell and senior All-America defensive lineman Caraun Reid recorded sacks for a defense that raised the pressure significantly in the second half. During the final 30 minutes, the Princeton defense forced as many turnovers (three) as it allowed points; a lone field goal was all Penn mustered in the decisive half.
The first half, however, was one of the wildest of the season, and certainly not one of Princeton's best. A penalty on the opening kickoff triggered an extended run of lousy field position, and that ultimately ended with a holding call in the end zone that gave Penn a game-opening safety.
Princeton was able to rebound and drove later in the quarter in search of a lead, but an Epperly pass to the sideline was tipped by Sam Chwarzynski, who caught the deflection and raced away from both Epperly and Kelley for the 61-yard score.
A six-yard touchdown run by Penn's Kyle Wilcox gave the Quakers a 16-0 lead less than three minutes into the second quarter, but the Tigers were able to settle and regain some momentum before the half. Epperly engineered an eight-play, 71-yard drive on the ensuing possession, and he finished it with a 10-yard scoring pass to DeValve, who pulled the ball in just inside the left sideline.
Zeuli recovered a fumbled handoff inside Penn territory, and Princeton converted on a pair of fourth downs to set up a 27-yard field goal by sophomore Nolan Bieck, who got the Tigers back within five points.
Penn started to move again, but a pressured Billy Ragone threw a pass right to Mitchell, who followed a host of blockers for a 59-yard return for a touchdown. It was Princeton's first defensive score of the season, and it gave the Tigers a temporary lead, though Ragone capped an impressive drive with a 34-yard scoring pass to Ryan Mitchell with 12 seconds remaining before halftime.
Princeton got off the field quickly to start the second half, and Epperly engineered a 15-yard scoring drive that he ended with a two-yard touchdown run. Quarterbacks Connor Michelsen and Kedric Bostic all played big roles on the drive, though the biggest play was a 12-yard catch by Connor Kelley on 3rd and 11. He added his 1-yard score early in the fourth quarter to open an eight-point lead, and following a field goal by Penn, Princeton ran off a 12-play, 63-yard drive for Kelley's clinching touchdown.
Princeton will honor a senior class that spent its first two years mired in a pair of 1-9 seasons next weekend when it hosts Yale Saturday at 1 pm for Senior Day. Those seniors, who have helped the Tigers to their first seven-game win streak since the 1995 season, can walk off Powers Field one final time with at least a share of the program's 10th Ivy League title if it could win against an improved Yale squad, which scored late to defeat Brown Saturday.
The task won't be easy, as everybody loves to ruin a good story late in the season.
But Princeton hasn't shied from an obstacle yet this season, including a championship-leve obstacle Saturday.


text: TrésOr Paris is one the most famous brand-new jewellery brands and has become extremely popular nowadays. TrésOr Paris bijoux is just a bright rising star, which uses bling crystal, beads and other mysterious elements, not only demonstrates the fashion trends but also retains the mystery of God's protecting. And TrésOr Paris bijouterie will arouse your potential power and unlimited potential by wearing it. TrésOr Paris boutique will bring back the good memories and make your own and loving the people around, as if to under the bless of God! The Spirituality brought by trésor bijoux classic series will change your life!


text:
Ski racing may be ending, but car racing is just getting started.
Miller Motorsports Park is holding the Utah Grand Prix from April 27–29. The park is kicking the racing season off with a bang for the 6th year in a row with six racing series with 13 races.
The main event is the NASCAR K&N Pro Series West, which is a developmental race series, mirrored by the NASCAR K&N Pro Series East. These series bring together veteran knowledge with fresh talent for a mesh of skills. The races also mark one of four road races for stock car enthusiasts. And speaking of cars, John Larson, General manager of Miller Motorsports Park is thrilled by the promised spread.
"This year's lineup offers an amazing variety of vehicles, from open-wheel formula cars to sports cars and NASCAR stock cars, with races on three different track configurations," said Larson in a recent press release.
Racing enthusiasts may need to keep a checklist of all the cars. The SCC Pirelli World Challenge Championship is also holding races during the Utah Grand Prix. These races focus on street automobiles, specifically "showroom stock." They'll be stocking the Utah Grand Prix with everything from Corvettes and Vipers to Mustangs and Camaros.
Aside from the classy cars, Miller wlll also welcome some local drivers you should know. Pleasant Grove residents Madison Snow and his mother, racing champion Melanie Snow, will be competing in different classes. And the park's director of performance schools, Grantsvile's Dan McKeever, will try his hand in the Pirelli World Challenge Championship.
The park will be in full working order during the event with karting at the Miller Kart Track and rides on their zip line.
Admission for the event is free on Friday, $25 on Saturday and $10 on Sunday. Kids up 12 are free all weekend long. Look for tickets online or call 435-277-7223.


text:
The Division will provide certain public information in accordance with the Public Records Law MGL c4, s7; MGL c66, s10 and 950 CMR 32.00.
The following public information about licensees is available:
- Full Name
- License Number
- License Type
- License Status
- Expiration Date
- Street Address
- City, State, and Zip Code
- County
- Issue Date
A PC-compatible CD-Rom containing a text file will be mailed to customers for a fee ($30 per selected box in the request form). Each data file contains all of the records for the chosen profession(s).
Ordering the Data File(s)
To place an order, please click on the link below to print the Request for Public Information Form. Mail your completed form along with your payment to:
The Division of Health Professions Licensure, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 500, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02114.
You may also download a Public Information file at no cost on our Verification web site. Follow the "Check a License" link under Online Services.
This information is provided by the Division of Health Professions Licensure within the Department of Public Health.


text:
Caputo's Fine Chocolate Fest on Thursday, Oct. 25
Starting from father Tony's meatball sandwich base, son Matt Caputo has transformed the beloved but garden variety deli into one of the country's premier fine food stores.
Beyond the cheese cave, the Creminelli, the imported pastas and heirloom beans, Caputo's chocolate selection reigns supreme, one of the best collections in the country. The store stocks a gorgeous selection of artisan filled chocolates and more than 300 different chocolate bars, including those most respected in the who's who of chocolatiers, like Amadei.
An official chocolate event celebrating, educating about and feasting on the food of the gods is in order. Get your tickets now for the event this Thursday.
Gabriele Bianchi from Amedei (Pisa, Italy) will be on hand during Caputo's Chocolate Fest to lead a tasting of award-winning chocolate with Matt.
Sample Amedei's chocolate but also a selection of cocoa-centric-sweet and savory- creations from an all-star line up of local chefs like Amber Billingsley (Vinto), Letty Flatt (Deer Valley Resort), Matt Harris (Heirloom Group), Ruth Kendrick (Chocolot), Lya Luna (Caputo's market), Romina R (Les Madeleines), Viet Pham (Forage) and many more. Beverage tastings from Epic Brewing Company, Libation wine brokerage, and Slide Ridge Honey will show guests the best drinks to pair with the world's best chocolate.
Admission price includes each tasting item, the full chocolate bar tasting, and beverage pairings.
All proceeds from the event will go charities that promote social and environmental sustainability in the world's cacao growing regions. Like I said: Thursday, October 25th from 7:30–10 p.m.
$10 advanced tickets, $15 at the door, $5 for beverage pairings. No cash bar.
Proceeds will go to Yachana Foundation in Ecuador for rainforest conservation.


text:
ChildLine is a private and confidential service for children and young people up to the age of 19. You can contact a ChildLine counsellor about anything -no problem is too big or too small. Call free on 0800 1111, have a 1-2-1 chat online or send an email.
This page has a list of some of the most common questions people have asked us about contacting ChildLine.
What kind of person will I talk to?ChildLine counsellors are trained staff and volunteers who all have experience of listening and talking to children and young people.
A ChildLine counsellor is someone who:
Counsellors are also human beings with different jobs, families and friends. They may be gay, heterosexual, bisexual, of any ethnicity or religion, have a disability or long term illness. They have all been children and had different experiences of childhood but they will never assume things about your situation or how you may be feeling. The focus will always be you and because of this, counsellors do not talk about themselves or answer personal questions. They are real people who care and want to be there for you.
Back to top
What should I say?
It can be hard to talk if you are upset or feeling hurt and you might not know what to say. Your ChildLine counsellor will give you plenty of time and help you as much as possible to talk about what's wrong so that we can support you.
There are a few things that you can do before you call, which might make talking easier:
What do I have to tell?You don't have to tell us anything that you don't want to - what you choose to tell us is up to you. The counsellor will ask you some questions to try and understand how you are feeling or to help you talk about it. You don't have to answer them if you don't want to.
If you change your mind and don't want to carry on talking that's fine. You can call back at any time, even if you didn't talk the first time you called. Sometimes it takes a few calls, chats or emails before you start really talking.
When you call us, you are in control. You can end the call at any time. If you want to call back later, that's fine, we are here for you 24 hours a day. The more you talk about what is happening and how it makes you feel, the more we can understand and help you but you are always in control of what you tell us.
Will ChildLine tell anyone what I say?
ChildLine is a private and confidential place for you to talk. This means that what you say stays between you and ChildLine. We would only say something if…
We want to keep you safe. However, we also understand the sort of situations you might be in. If we do need to tell somebody, we'll try and give you as much control over what happens as possible. The last thing we want is to make things worse for you.
Read our confidentiality promise for more information.
How can I give ChildLine feedback or make a complaint?
ChildLine is here for you and we will always try to listen to how you feel. If you want to give us feedback about something or make a complaint, you can do this by:
What you think is important to us. Find out more about how you can get involved in our surveys.
How can I contact ChildLine?
There are a number of ways in which you can contact ChildLine. You have a choice between which one you are most comfortable and confident with. This might change depending on your mood, what you want to talk about or even how much time you have.
Call free on 0800 1111
Live in the Channel Islands? Calls may be chargeable from mobiles and the number will appear on your mobile bill. To call us free from the Channel Islands, we advise that you use a landline or phone box.
1-2-1 chat
Send us an email
When you talk to ChildLine by calling, emailing, or chatting online we will make a few notes about what you tell us. These will only be seen by ChildLine staff and volunteers.
Send an email to a ChildLine counsellor.
Back to top
ChildLine message boards
Visit the ChildLine message boards.
Ask Sam
Ask Sam a question or read what other young people have asked.
Are calls free from mobiles?
Yes, calls are free from mobiles when you're making the call from within the UK (excluding Channel Islands). If you're abroad and need to contact ChildLine, you might be charged. But you can still get support and advice from our website.Even if you don't have credit on your mobile phone you can still call us for free. The only exception to this is if you are calling from the Channel Islands or from abroad.
Important – please read
Remember, you can also contact a counsellor in confidence for free through online chat or email.
Will the number show up on my phone bill?Calls to ChildLine don't show up on a BT or cable phone bill.
We have been told that calls to ChildLine won't show up on your mobile phone bill. The only exception is if you are calling from the Channel Islands. Live in the Channel Islands? The number will appear on your mobile bill. If you are worried about this, we advise that you use a landline or phone box.
Remember, you can also contact a counsellor in confidence for free through online chat or email.
Will I have to wait to talk to a counsellor?ChildLine works hard to make sure that we are here to help you when you need us. Sometimes it can be busy but please be patient, we care about everyone contacting us and someone will talk to you as soon as possible. You are very important to us.
We would really like to be able to tell you how long you'll have to wait for a 1-2-1 chat. We know it can be frustrating to wait, when you want to talk to someone. Unfortunately it's not possible to say how long you will have to wait, because it depends on lots of things, like:
A 1-2-1 chat also takes longer than a phone call because both you and the counsellor type rather than speak, and this means that it can take a while.
We have looked into trying to give you some idea of the waiting time, but we can't do this technically at the moment. We will continue to look at ways to solve this problem and apologise for any inconvenience. If you need to speak to someone urgently and can't wait for a 1-2-1 chat, you might find it easier to phone us on 0800 1111.
How long can I talk to a counsellor for?
You can talk to ChildLine on the phone on 0800 1111 and online on 1-2-1 chat any time that you want to. There are times though when we get very busy and it might take a while for you to get through.
An average phone call can be approximately 30 minutes. It's usually less than this, but might be more depending on what help you need. A 1-2-1 online chat usually lasts around 40 minutes. We have asked young people who use the service about this, and they have told us that this should be long enough for us to explore what is worrying you, but also allow other young people the chance to talk to us too. You are of course welcome to come back any time that you need to.
How many times can I call in one day?
Every young person is important to us. We do our best to answer every call as soon as possible. It is free to telephone ChildLine and anyone can call us at any time.
A small number of people, often adults, call us for reasons other than getting help or support. Even after ChildLine has tried to support them and get them help from appropriate services, they continue to contact ChildLine every day. Calling so frequently can mean children and young people who do need help can't get through to a ChildLine counsellor.
So that we can reduce these types of calls, we have put a limit on the number of times that someone can call us from the same phone number in a single day. The limit will be ten telephone calls in a 24-hour period.
If you do call us more than ten times from the same phone number in a 24-hour period you will hear a message informing you that you can't call us for another 24 hours.
Please remember you can still get support through our website. This limit does not apply to your 1-2-1 chat or email contacts with ChildLine counsellors.
Once you are in the telephone queue to speak to a counsellor, if you can, it's best to stay until you get to speak to someone. Although waiting can be frustrating at times, our call queues are usually short. Please try not to hang up before you get speaking to a counsellor as redialling will put you to the back of the queue.
Does ChildLine work differently during the night?
Yes. In order for us to help you during the night, ChildLine offers a slightly different service between midnight and 7.30am in the morning.
You can still contact a counsellor by calling free on 0800 1111 or through 1-2-1 online chat. However, you may find that you are asked a few questions about your safety – where you are and if you feel someone might harm you or you might harm yourself. You don't need to give us specific details; a simple yes or no will be okay. We have a lot fewer counsellors during these hours compared to the day so we have to make sure someone is available to talk to anyone in immediate danger.
You are still very important to us. If we cannot take your call or chat during the night, we may ask you to try and call back after 7.30am. This allows a counsellor to spend more time with you. Remember you can still email ChildLine, post on the message boards and use Ask Sam anytime.
To find out more about the night service visit the contacting ChildLine at night page.
Will the counsellor give me their name?
Every call to ChildLine is focused on you. To make sure that this is the case counsellors are asked not to share personal details with you. However, counsellors will give you their first name if they think this will help you to feel more comfortable talking to them and if it's important to you. If you want to know the name of the counsellor you are talking to please ask them.
Are counsellors scripted?
Calls to ChildLine are not scripted. Every call, chat or email is answered by a real person who cares and wants to support you.
Can I contact ChildLine in Welsh?We currently don't offer a full Welsh speaking counselling service. However, we do have a number of Welsh speaking counsellors at ChildLine. If you contact us (by phone or online) and let us know you'd like to speak to someone in Welsh we can arrange a time for you to speak to a Welsh speaking counsellor.
How do I create an online account?
Sign up for a free ChildLine account in six easy steps.
Why has my nickname been rejected?
ChildLine is a place where you are free to talk about any subject, even ones that are very personal and might put you at risk. To allow you to do so safely, we take your anonymity very seriously and make sure that nothing you post on the ChildLine website could identify you outside of ChildLine.
If your nickname is one that you use for other message boards, forums or social networking sites, this may identify you to anyone reading your messages. It is really important for your own safety and confidentiality that you choose a different nickname for the ChildLine website.
If you have chosen a nickname which could identify you, like your real name, then we will send an email to your personal inbox to let you know and to ask you to change it. We will also do this if your chosen nickname includes swearwords or something that we think is inappropriate. This may mean that your message board posts or gallery images won't be accepted until your nickname is changed.
You can find out more about what nicknames aren't allowed in the House rules.
Why can't I log in?
Very rarely, you may find that you no longer have access to your account when you try to log in. The reason for this may be:
If you do find you can't log in to your account, please feel free to create a new account and talk with us again. Please note that we will not be able to access any of the information you might have given us with your old account, so please be patient with us. We will do our best to let you know if we are going to close your account for any reason.
I don't live in the UK, why can't I sign up for a ChildLine account?
ChildLine is a UK based charity and only has limited numbers of counsellors. We are only able to provide a counselling service to young people in the UK. This means that only young people in the UK can sign up for an account and use the 1-2-1 chat, email and message boards on the ChildLine website. All young people are welcome to read our advice and use the rest of the website.
How do I cancel or close my ChildLine account?
If you would like to cancel or close your account on the ChildLine website, please:
We will then send you an email to your personal inbox confirming that you want to close the account. If we don't hear from you within three days, we will close your account and you will not be able to log in again.
Please note that when you close your account, we can't delete all your information. ChildLine has to keep a record of all users that have used our service, even if they close their account and don't contact us anymore. This means that we will keep a record of any emails you have sent us or any contact with a counsellor you have had. These will be saved under your username. We will only know about your real identity if you have given us identifying details about yourself (such as your name, where you live, the name of your school etc.).
ChildLine and data allowances for O2 customers
If you're an O2 customer, using ChildLine does not count towards your data allowance. However, it is important to know that when you play a video on our site, then this will count towards your data allowance.
Does the website work on all computers, mobile devices and internet browsers?
The ChildLine website works on most internet browsers and computers, mobile phones and tablets. But it may look a bit different on older computer browsers (like Internet Explorer 6) and older mobile phones.
If you're having problems using the website on an old computer or device, you could try using a new computer at your school or a local library. You may be able to download newer browsers like Chrome or Internet Explorer.
Where can I talk to ChildLine online?
ChildLine.org.uk is the only place online where you can have a 1-2-1 conversation with a ChildLine counsellor. This is a safe space with a team of people working together to make sure every conversation with ChildLine is confidential.
Visit the talk page for the different ways you can contact ChildLine.
What if I see the ChildLine name or logo somewhere else, can I talk to people on that site too?
Sometimes we share our logo, games and videos with other websites to help more young people find out about ChildLine. You might see a ChildLine game on a gaming site, or some advice from ChildLine on another site for young people. These other sites are helping to spread the word about ChildLine, but they are not able to help people the way ChildLine can, and you should only trust and talk to ChildLine.org.uk.
Back to top
Someone messaged me and told me they are a counsellor. What should I do?
Our counsellors will never approach you online and tell you they are counsellors or try to talk to you. If you see someone trying to start 1-2-1 conversations using the ChildLine name anywhere other than ChildLine.org.uk, you should tell us straight away. You can do this by phoning 0800 1111, through 1-2-1 chat online or by sending us an email.
Back to top
Where else might I find ChildLine online, and what should I expect to see?
To help us reach more people who might need someone to talk to, ChildLine is on Facebook and YouTube.
Facebook.com/ChildLineIt's a great place to get encouraging and inspiring messages that we think are great for sharing. We post about lots of different things on Facebook, from best ways to cope with exam stress to how to deal with a difficult time at home.You can like, comment and share our posts. You can also join in discussions about issues that ChildLine helps with.Our Facebook page is public so it's best to think about what you choose to say. If anything on the page breaks the house rules it will be deleted as soon as possible.The ChildLine Facebook team can reply to comments and messages but are a little different to ChildLine. They aren't there to give you support like counsellors but they are there to help you find ways to get the support you need.
You can talk to counsellor by calling free on 0800 1111, having a 1-2-1 chat online or sending an email through your locker. Read more about our confidentiality promise.
Read more about the ChildLine Facebook page.
Anything missing?
ChildLine is a service provided by NSPCC Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH. Registered charity numbers 216401 and SC037717.
We want to make sure everyone can access the information provided on this site
We've put together a few tips and help for you. Please send us a message if you can't find what you're looking for. Or you have a suggestion of something we could include.
Using the keyboard instead of the mouseAs well as using the tab key to navigate through the screen, the ChildLine website has special access keys:
Alt+S = skip navigationAlt+1 = homeAlt+0 = accessibility information.
Is the text size too large or too small?You can change your text settings through your browser options:
In Internet Explorer, go to View > Text size and select your desired text size setting (eg, larger, smaller).
In Firefox, go to View > Text size and increase/decrease using Ctrl and + or -
If you have a scroll wheel on your mouse, you can hold down Ctrl and scroll back or forth to increase or decrease the font size in both IE and Firefox.
Changing your computer screen settingsTo change the size of the image shown on your screen on a PC running Windows 95 and upwards, go to Start > Settings > Control Panel > Display > Settings and change the desktop area by using the sliding bar.
On an Apple Mac, you can use the Monitor & Sound Control Panel to change the resolution.
Having difficulty with your keyboard or mouse?You can fine-tune your mouse and keyboard settings under Start > Settings > Control Panel > Accessibility in Windows 95/98/NT/2000 and XP.
Skipping navigation for talking browsers and screen readersFor speech browsers, you can press Alt and S followed by Enter to skip navigation on our pages.
The site is W3C level A compliant.
This page contains help and advice. If you need to contact ChildLine please go to the Talk to us page
Search for something on the websiteTo search for something on the website, type what you want to find in the search box on the navigation of the site.


text:
|95 Leroy Vick
More than 50 current and former student-athletes eligible to participate in commencement exercises
Pirates Complete Last Practice of Spring Season
Defensive Front, Physical Play Highlights Second Spring Scrimmage
ECU Readies For Second Scrimmage
East Carolina Wraps Up First Week Of Work
Hopes to compete in a Pirate uniform for the first time as a senior after suffering significant spring injuries in back-to-back years ... Sat out the entire 2011 campaign because of a left knee injury before a concussion halted 2012 drill participation in less than a week ... Entered the East Carolina program as a highly-regarded and mature interior defensive lineman who coaches felt would provide a major impact to the Pirates' efforts up front during initial season ... Successfully finished two non-contact sessions before suffering the latter injury, which required EMS transportation to Vidant Medical Center from the Cliff Moore Practice Complex, during the first day in pads on March 23 ... Was cleared during the summer and will battle for depth chart inclusion at a deep nose tackle position during preseason camp .... A strong and sizeable local prep product who plays with a high level of energy and intensity ... Power number of note is a bench press of 385 pounds.
2011: Missed the entire season due to a left knee injury suffered April 2 during program's first spring scrimmage ... Officially enrolled early at East Carolina in January after inking a letter-of-intent during the December junior college signing period.
Junior College: A 2010 Preseason National Junior College Athletic Association All-America selection ... Totaled 50 tackles and five sacks during freshman campaign before earning preseason All-America honors as a sophomore ... Played for head coach Bert Williams ... A four-star recruit according to ESPN.com.
High School: A three-year letterwinner for coach Richie Pridgen at Fike High School ... Booked 67 tackles with three sacks and recovered three fumbles during final campaign ... A New-Six All-Conference selection as a senior defensive lineman ... Chosen to start for the East squad at the 2008 East-West All-Star Game ... Tallied 69 tackles, including 20 solo hits, as a junior ... Also lettered in wrestling and track.
Personal: Full name is Leroy Percy Vick, Jr. ... Born July 7, 1989 at Baltimore, Md. ... Son of Bobby Council and Gwen Robinson ... A communications major who earned selection to the ECU Honor Roll (3.0 grade point average or higher) for classroom performance during the spring semester of 2012 ... Lists working with youth as his favorite activity away from football.