Severn Suzuki, daughter of David Suzuki  made the following speech in 1992 to the United Nations Conference for the Environment and Development.

This video has been circulating recently. The worrying question is:

Q: HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE 1992?

A: Sadly, not enough - too little. More effort has been put into talking and tinkering with policies and regulations than actual action. Emmissions continue to increase, and we continue to see growing environmental impact through the weather, which is affecting water and food supplies for the global population.

This article was recently posted By Marie Oser. It is full of useful information.

While still in the womb, children are exposed to chemicals that can impair normal growth and development. This internal pollution persists as we are exposed to environmental toxins throughout life. Chemicals accumulate and interact within the body, causing illness¹.

The range of maladies include, autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy, Tourette syndrome, and cerebral palsy. All are believed to be the outcome of some abnormal process that unfolded as the brain was developing in utero or in the young child.

A new study published in the October issue of Pediatrics estimates the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder to be 1 in every 91 children in the U.S,² an increase from the current estimate of 1 in 150. This ongoing and dramatic increase has many experts investigating the extent of the role environmental toxins may play.

The idea that substances in the environment can damage the nervous system is not a new concept. Lead has long been recognized as a neurotoxin. More than 2,000 years ago the Greek physician Dioscerides wrote, “Lead makes the mind give way.”  Since the ancients first recognized neurotoxins, many other substances have been added to the list.

1. Heavy metals: Mercury, lead, arsenic, aluminum, and cadmium

Risks: Cancer, Alzheimer’s, neurological disorders, arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm), decreased red/white blood cell production.

Sources: Drinking water, fish, vaccines, pesticides, preserved wood, antiperspirants, building materials, and dental amalgams

2. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls): Industrial chemical banned in the U.S. for decades, however PCBs are still found in the environment.

Risks: Cancer, impaired fetal brain development

Source: Farm-raised salmon

3. Pesticides: According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the overwhelming majority of pesticides are known carcinogens.³ Pesticide residues have been detected in 50 to 95 percent of foods.

Risks: Cancer, Parkinson’s, nerve damage, miscarriage, birth defects

Sources: Food (produce and meats), bug sprays

4. Mold, fungus: Mold (Mycotoxins) cause a range of health issues for 33 percent of people exposed to very small amounts.

Risks: Cancer, asthma, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, diabetes

Sources: Buildings, foods: peanuts, wheat, corn, and alcohol

5. VOCs (volatile organic compounds): Pollute the air.

Risks: Cancer, eye/respiratory problems, headache, impaired memory

Sources: Water, carpeting, cleaning fluids, paints and varnishes, deodorants, cosmetics, dry cleaning, air fresheners, moth repellents

6. Phthalates: Chemicals found in fragrances and plastics.

Risks: Endocrine system damage (phthalates mimic hormones; especially dangerous to developing children and teens)

Sources: Cosmetics, plastic wrap, bottles, food storage containers

7. Chlorine: Highly toxic gas and chemical agent with variety of uses.

Risks: Sore throat, wheezing, fluid in lungs, rapid breathing, burns to skin/eyes, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) type of asthma

Sources: Household cleaners, breathing air near industry (such as a paper plant), drinking water (small amounts)

8. Dioxins: Chemical compounds from combustion processes, waste incineration, and burning fuels such as, wood, coal, or oil.

Risks: Cancer, reproductive and developmental disorders, skin rashes, skin discoloration, chloracne (severe dermatitis with acne-like lesions) excessive body hair, mild liver damage

Sources: Animal fats: More than 95 percent of exposure is animal fats.

9. Asbestos: Insulating material widely used from 1950s to 1970s. Asbestos fibers are released into the air as material ages.

Risks: Cancer, scarring of lung tissue, mesothelioma (a form of cancer)

Sources: Insulation in ceilings, floors, water pipes, and healing ducts

10. Chloroform: Chlorine added to water becomes chloroform. A colorless liquid with a slightly sweet taste and pleasant odor, chloroform is used in the production of many other chemicals.

Risks: Cancer, reproductive damage, birth defects, dizziness, fatigue, headache, liver and kidney damage.

Sources: Industrial effluent, municipal waste treatment plant discharges, hazardous waste sites and spills

Sources

Summit participants confirmed a picture of success and selected three strategic directions for action for each of nine sustainability issues. Small groups brainstormed around potential tools and techniques for putting actions into play.

The report down downloaded at http://bit.ly/MetroVancouver_Summit_2008

According to Harris Decima Senior Vice-President Jeff Walker; "In contrast to prevailing views that environmental efforts recede in a recession, Canadians continue to integrate environmentally sustainable behaviours into their lives, and overwhelmingly believe that much more can and should be done".

More than seven in ten Canadians say environmental consciousness is
something that is becoming more important to them over the past few years. 71% of respondents said environmental conservation is more important to them than it was a few years ago.

25% said it was no more or less important to them than a few years ago, while just 2% said it was less important to them personally. No less than 60% of respondents in any region said environmental conservation was becoming more important to them. There was a divide across voting intention lines, with Conservatives being less likely than other voters to say environmental conservation was becoming more important to them over the past few years.

Unsurprisingly, given that environmental conservation is becoming more important to them, most Canadians believe that the current focus on the environment is not going far enough. 74% of respondents said that the current focus on the environment is not going far enough, almost four times the number who said that the focus on the environment was going too far (19%).

Conservatives and residents west of Ontario were most likely to say that the focus on the environment had gone too far, while men (24%) were more likely than women (14%) to say so.

In spite of the recession, Canadians are making more of an effort to be environmentally conscious than they were a year ago. 73% of respondents were of this position, while 24% are making no more or less effort. Just 2% of respondents were making less of an effort than a year ago.

A strong majority among all regions and demo groups were of this view, although there was a divergence across gender with women (77%) being more likely than men (69%) to say they were making more of an effort to be environmentally conscious than they were a year ago.

Most believe that environmentally friendly choices are more costly in general, but that part of this cost is negated in the long term. In general, 60% of respondents believe that environmentally friendly products and services are most costly, while 31% feel these choices are about the same cost and 4% feel the cost is less for environmentally friendly choices.

When it comes to the cost of environmentally friendly choices in the longer term, a plurality (46%) felt these costs were similar to other choices, while 39% maintained these choices were more costly over the longer term.

2 in 3 believe the environment should remain a top priority, even while the economy is struggling. 67% of respondents were of this view, while 26% felt that governments should focus on economic growth and make the environment a secondary priority.

This viewpoint was most prevalent in eastern Canada, with those west of Ontario more likely than average to say the focus should be on economic growth. Across voting intention lines, Conservatives are much less likely than others to believe the environment should remain a top priority for governments.

Each week, Harris/Decima interviews just over 1000 Canadians through teleVox, the company’s national telephone omnibus survey. These data were gathered between July 23 and July 26 2009. A sample of the same size has a margin of error of 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.