Author Archives: Vonnie Criswell

Meet 18 Sochi Athletes Whose Struggles (and Style) Will Make You Stand Up and Cheer

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on February 8, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday, during slopestyle qualifiers at the Winter Olympics, Dutch snowboarder Cheryl Maas became the first Olympian to act in direct opposition of Russia’s bigoted anti-gay law when she stared into a television camera and shoved a rainbow-colored unicorn glove at the lens. In doing so, the defiant winter veteran—one of only six openly gay competitors in Sochi—carried on a long tradition of athletes injecting a little character and dissent into the Games, reminding us just why we love sports to begin with.

Considering the staggering tales of mismanagement, corruption, and regional terrorist threats, here are 17 more Olympians we’re hoping do the same:

THE FIVE OTHER OPENLY GAY ATHLETES

SSA TV/Youtube

Partly because of boycotts, and partly because of Russia’s anti-LGBT law, just five other gay athletes—all women—are joining Maas in openly competing in this year’s Games. Four of them—Ireen Wüst (a gold-medal-winning Dutch speed skater), Sanne van Kerkhof (a Dutch short-track speedskater), Barbara Jezeršek (a Slovenian cross-country skier), and Anatasia Bucsis (a Canadian speed skater) are also previous Olympians. For Belle Brockhoff, an Australian snowboarder who came out as gay specifically to protest the Russian law, Sochi is her first Olympic competition. In an interview with the BBC, she explained: “I want to go there because I’m not afraid of these laws and I want others that live in Russia, who are homosexuals, to see that.”

SHIVA KESHAVAN

Imago/Zuma

Last year, the Indian Olympic Association was suspended on allegations of corruption. As a result, none of India’s three Olympic athletes will be allowed to compete under the Indian flag in Sochi. But luger Shiva Keshavan is sliding anyway—and he’s doing so in a multicolored, patterned cap intended to represented his home village. Keshavan is no stranger to fighting the odds: At 16, became the youngest luger in history, and now competes without a coach or winter sports infrastructure. Despite Keshavan winning gold in the 2011 and 2012 Asia cups, acting IOA president Vijay Kumar Malhotra insists that the Indian winter athletes don’t stand a chance of winning. Still, this will be Keshavan’s fifth Olympiad—with or without his country’s official backing.

LANNY BARNES

WBUR/Flickr

Perhaps this year’s quintessential Olympic tale of selflessness, Lanny and Tracy Barnes’ story will melt the icy cockles of your cynical heart. The twin sisters were both expected to qualify for Sochi, but during the final round of US biathlon qualifiers, Lanny fell too ill to compete and was forced to stay home. Tracy, though, made the cut. A week later, Tracy sacrificed her spot so Lanny could race instead. “Love is selfless dedication,” she explained in an interview. “Love means giving up your dream so somebody else can realize theirs.” Though they’re both Olympic veterans, Tracy’s withdrawal comes only four years after barely missing the 2010 Olympics.

NORWEGIAN CURLING TEAM

Cameron Yee/Flickr

In recent years, curling has seen an unexpected and surging growth in popularity. If you tuned in to the 2010 Vancouver Games, you might recall Norway’s amazing patterned pants during its silver-medal-winning performance. In Sochi, the team will don even more outrageous outfits: 1970s-inspired red, blue, and white zig-zag suits referencing the nation’s flag. Appreciation for the team’s loud sense of style even spawned a Facebook page with more than 540,000 fans—nearly as many people as live in Oslo.

YOHAN GOUTT GONCALVES

Yohan Goutt Goncalves/Wikimedia Commons

Goncalves is the first athlete to ever compete in the Winter Olympics for East Timor, a country that’s never seen snow. In fact, the country’s annual temperature stays around 85 degrees. Competing in the ski slalom, Goncalves wants to go to Sochi as a “diplomat” to show that there is “more to East Timor than war.” That’s more than we can say about his mariachi-suited slalom competitor.

JAMAICAN BOBSLED TEAM

Olympics/Youtube

Heading to the Winter Olympics for the first time in more than a decade, the Jamaican bobsled team has fans hoping for Cool Runnings 2.0. Jamaica’s inaugural bobsled run, in the 1988 Calgary Olympics, ended in a disastrous crash. Upon arriving in Sochi, the team was further hindered as a result of the airport temporarily losing the competitors’ clothes and equipment. Still, 12 years since their last appearance, and crowd-funded by more than $184,000, the two-man team is looking for redemption.

US WOMEN’S SKI JUMPING TEAM

Mht54321/Wikimedia Commons

2014 marks the first year women’s ski jumping will be an Olympic event, with advocacy by American Lindsay Van largely responsible for bringing it there. In an interview on Rock Center With Brian Williams, Van explained how sexism kept the event out of the Olympics for years. (In 2006, International Ski Federation President Gian Franco Kasper said, “It’s like jumping down from, let’s say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view.”) Now, along with teammates Jessica Jerome and Sarah Hendrickson—a medal favorite who’s recovering from an ACL injury—Van finally will see her hard work come to fruition at the Olympics.

Continue reading:

Meet 18 Sochi Athletes Whose Struggles (and Style) Will Make You Stand Up and Cheer

Posted in alo, Anchor, bigo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, oven, Paradise, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet 18 Sochi Athletes Whose Struggles (and Style) Will Make You Stand Up and Cheer

Study reveals how badly frackers lie about jobs

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on November 22, 2013

Study reveals how badly frackers lie about jobs

By

Shutterstock

The fracking industry wouldn’t lie, would it? But how else to explain the massive discrepancies between the number of jobs that it claims to create and the number of jobs that it actually creates? Perhaps it’s just confused about what’s going on at its own operations.

Whatever the reason, the gulf between fracking propaganda and reality has been laid bare in a new report led by the Multi-State Shale Research Collaborative, a watchdog group that studies employment trends, economic development, and community impacts associated with fracking and proposed fracking in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

“Industry supporters have exaggerated the jobs impact in order to minimize or avoid altogether taxation, regulation, and even careful examination of shale drilling,” Frank Mauro, one of the authors of the report, told the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

For example, the report debunks industry-backed claims [PDF] that each fracking well in the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale directly employs 31 people. From the report summary:

Between 2005 and 2012, less than four new direct shale-related jobs have been created for each new well drilled, much less than estimates as high as 31 direct jobs per well in some industry-financed studies.

Region-wide, shale-related employment accounts for just one out of every 795 jobs. By contrast, education and health sectors account for one out of every six jobs. …

The report also questions claims about how many indirect jobs are supported through fracking:

Industry-funded studies have used questionable assumption in economic modeling to inflate the number of jobs created in related supply chain industries (indirect jobs) as well as those created by the spending of income earned from the industry or its suppliers (induced jobs).

The fracking industry blithely dismissed the findings in the report, pointing out that it was financed by philanthropic groups that have provided grants to opponents of fracking. “It’s like the pot calling the kettle black,” John Holko of the Independent Oil and Gas Association told the newspaper. “They complain about the industry, but yet it’s a report done by an anti-industry group.”

Hey, we just remembered another time the fracking industry lied, when it forged Colorado business owners’ signatures on a pro-industry petition. So it’s not completely unprecedented.


Source
New Report Examines Shale Drilling Impact, Fiscal Policy Institute
Report: Industry-backed studies exaggerate fracking job estimates, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Taken from:  

Study reveals how badly frackers lie about jobs

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study reveals how badly frackers lie about jobs

The Fox Tail is Wagging the GOP Dog

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on June 4, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

What’s the Republican Party to do? A recent report, commissioned by the College National Republican Committee, tells us what we already knew, namely that the GOP is widely reviled by young voters:

In the focus group research conducted in January 2013, the young “winnable” Obama voters were asked to say what words came to mind when they heard “Republican Party.” The responses were brutal: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned….The same respondents in the Columbus group of young men who voted for Obama were asked to name who they viewed as leaders of the Democratic Party. They named prominent former or currently elected officials: Pelosi, the Clintons, Obama, Kennedy, Gore. When those same respondents were asked to name Republican leaders, they focused heavily on media personalities and commentators: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.

So what’s the answer? It’s obvious to us liberals: ease up on the gay bashing, ease up on the gender wars, ease up on the dog-whistle racial appeals, and ease up on the NRA über alles approach to gun regulation.

The problem is that while this may seem obvious to us, moving further and further to the right hasn’t been the disaster for Republicans that we often make it out to be. Sure, they’ve lost two presidential elections in a row, but parties lose two presidential elections in a row all the time. On the brighter side, they won a landslide victory in 2010 and took control of the House. They control enough statehouses to gerrymander their way to continued control for a good long time. And for a party supposedly on the ropes, they sure seem to have Democrats scared that they might win back control of the Senate in 2014.

So why change? Especially since easing up on culture war issues, while it might appeal to younger voters, would almost certainly lose them votes among their older, more tea partyish base. It’s genuinely hard to see how this turns into a net win for Republicans in the short term, and it’s hard to see why they’d be motivated to risk it given the fact that they probably don’t feel like they’re actually in any existential danger right now.

Still, in the long term this is surely a serious problem. So how to solve it? By chance, a friend just wrote me an email that provides the answer. Here it is:

I’m a little confused. The Garance Franke-Ruta story on the “157 visits!” seems to have been completely missed by the Fox News world. I expected they’d breeze by it and not admit they got it wrong (O’Reilly’s segment looks comical in retrospect, even going so far as to tell Douglas Shulman to shove the Easter eggs from the Easter Egg Roll up his ass) but they went right back to it last night. And Bob Woodward even joined in. They have to account for those 157 visits immediately!

What the …?

Bob Somerby was watching Fox last night and reports the same thing. And there you have it. It’s conservative media that controls the GOP’s fate. The Republican Party could almost certainly solve its problem if Fox News and the rest of the gang were on board. They could lighten up on the culture war stuff, thus increasing their appeal among young voters, while keeping the oldsters on board too. Right now, though, they can’t do it because the Rush/Drudge/Fox axis will go ballistic, turning the tea partiers into frothing maniacs over every perceived deviation from traditional morality. If they agreed among themselves to stop doing this, the frothing would subside and the party would have a whole lot more short-term maneuvering room to address their long-term problem.

But my friend’s email explains why that won’t happen. Fox and the others aren’t really in business to help Republicans. They’re in business to keep the tea party crowd whipped up and ready to invest in the gold coins offered by their advertisers. Outrage is how they do this, and neither facts nor the long-term health of the GOP are allowed to get in the way. Pounding away mendaciously on Shulman’s 157 visits might be the kind of overreach that hurts Republicans in the long run, but who cares? The rubes don’t read the Washington Post and don’t know that the story is bogus, so Fox will keep at it because it’s good for business. The tail is now wagging the dog, and the Republican Party is being held hostage to the bottom line of the conservative media.

This is the Republican Party’s core problem. Sure, it’s always hard for a party to change directions, even moderately, but it’s almost impossible when you have organs like Fox News generating froth-at-the-mouth outrage over every deviation from orthodoxy. It makes the short-term risk of change too great to bear. Until the GOP fixes that, they’re going to have a hard time fixing anything else.

See the original article here:

The Fox Tail is Wagging the GOP Dog

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Fox Tail is Wagging the GOP Dog

IRS Speaks Out: We Messed Up, But We Would’ve Scrutinized Tea Partiers Anyway

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on May 17, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Finally, the IRS is giving a full accounting of how and why its staffers singled out tea partiers and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. The quick version: We had the right idea but went about it all wrong.

On Friday morning, Steven Miller, the acting IRS commissioner set to resign due to the scandal, appeared before the House ways and means committee and testified that several IRS employees made “foolish mistakes” by using catchwords like “tea party” and “patriots” as they picked through hundreds of nonprofit applications from groups that might be involved in politics. Miller described his agency’s behavior as “obnoxious.” Yet he denied that the IRS vetters who handled all those applications for groups wanting 501(c)(4) nonprofit status—who were working out of a field office in Cincinnati—acted out of political bias. Instead, he said the agency’s errors “were made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection.”

Prior to Miller’s testimony, the IRS itself took the unusual step of posting on its website 14 questions related to the tea party debacle and the agency’s official response to each one. It’s an interesting and useful document.

The IRS insists that its staffers, as Miller emphasized, were wrong to target groups with “tea party” or “patriots” in their name. However, the agency says that it would’ve zeroed in on tea partiers and other conservative groups anyway, as it looked for applicants that might be getting too involved in politics. They sought out politically-inclined groups because 501(c)(4) nonprofits are allowed to dabble in politics but cannot make it their “primary activity.” But as they looked for groups that might be too political, they used inappropriate shortcuts.

“IRS employees had seen cases of organizations with the name Tea Party in which political activity was an issue that needed to be reviewed for compliance with legal requirements,” the agency says. “Because of the increased inventory of applications, this inappropriate criterion was used as a shortcut to centralize similar cases.” In other words, as a booming number of tea party outfits across the country were filing for tax-exempt status, the folks in charge of reviewing such applications—and making sure applicants were not engaged in so much political action that they would not qualify for this tax status—found it convenient to flag groups with “tea party,” “patriot,” and “9/12 Project” in their name.

The agency also says on its website that it found “no indication of political bias”—echoing the Treasury Department inspector general who investigated the tea party mess. The IRS staffers in Cincinnati didn’t have a grudge for the tea party; they felt, it seems, that tea partiers were simply more prone to get involved in politics.

The agency also offered a few basics on how it handles nonprofit applications. All applications go through Cincinnati, where there are less than 200 people who directly handle those files. Because the agency saw an increase in 501(c)(4) applications from potentially politically active groups, staffers there pooled all those applications together and gave a few selected employees the job of scrutinizing those applications.

Some more interesting nuggets in the Q-and-A:

Not only has the IRS seen an uptick in the number of 501(c)(4) applications, it says the number of groups applying that could become involved in politics has risen as well.

The IRS admits it mistakenly caused “inappropriate delays” for groups applying for tax-exempt status, and made “over-expansive information requests” of the groups it singled out for extra scrutiny. The IRS blamed this on “ineffective processes.”

In 2010 and 2011, as we’ve reported, IRS staffers specifically looked for groups with “tea party” or “patriots” in their name. However, of the nearly 300 groups with applications flagged by IRS staffers, the vast majority did not have either of those words in their name.

The IRS Q-and-A links to a list of almost 170 nonprofit groups given special scrutiny by IRS staffers but later approved for 501(c)(4) status. The entities on that list run the political gamut and include local tea party groups, statewide progressive organizations such as Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc., former Sen. Russ Feingold’s Progressives United outfit, and issue-based organizations such as Californians Against Higher Health Costs and Homeless But Not Powerless.

Here is the full list from the IRS’ website:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/701529-irs-list-of-nonprofits-flagged-for-political.js”,
width: 640,
height: 600,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
pdf: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-701529-irs-list-of-nonprofits-flagged-for-political”
);

Follow this link:

IRS Speaks Out: We Messed Up, But We Would’ve Scrutinized Tea Partiers Anyway

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on IRS Speaks Out: We Messed Up, But We Would’ve Scrutinized Tea Partiers Anyway

Regulatory Arbitrage Once Again a Growth Industry

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on April 12, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A Wells Fargo analyst says that investors remain wary of big banks:

So-called universal banks such as Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) are trading at a 25 percent to 30 percent discount to more-focused competitors, analysts led by Matthew H. Burnell wrote in a research report today.

….“Given the challenges posed by increasing regulation, higher capital requirements, and well-publicized trading/market challenges, it’s not surprising that investors remain reluctant to assign a ‘full’ valuation to the universal banks,” the analysts wrote. “If regulators and/or legislators don’t demand it, shareholders could also intensify demands to ‘break up the banks.’ ”

As capital requirements become more stringent, big banks need to do something to improve their capital ratios. One way to do this is to accumulate more capital. Alternatively, since the ratio in question is capital / assets, you can reduce your asset base. And since safer assets require less capital, one way to do this is to sell off your risky assets and replace them with safer assets.

Unfortunately, as the Wells Fargo report points out, this reduces your potential profits and makes investors sad. So instead of actually improving the safety of your asset base, maybe it would be better if you could just pretend to improve the safety of your asset base? In other words, why not engage in some good old-fashioned regulatory arbitrage instead? Here’s the New York Times today:

Banks have been shedding risky assets to show regulators that they are not as vulnerable as they were during the financial crisis. In some cases, however, the assets don’t actually move — the bank just shifts the risk to another institution.

This trading sleight of hand has been around Wall Street for a while. But as regulators press for banks to be safer, demand for these maneuvers — known as capital relief trades or regulatory capital trades — has been growing, especially in Europe.

….The buyers are typically hedge funds, whose investors are often pensions that manage the life savings of schoolteachers and city workers. The buyers agree to cover a percentage of losses on these assets for a fee, sometimes 15 percent a year or more.

….Some regulators say they are concerned that in some instances these transactions are not actually taking risk off bank balance sheets….Critics point to other reasons to worry. Most of these trades are structured as credit-default swaps, a derivative that resembles insurance. These kinds of swaps pushed the insurance giant American International Group to the brink of collapse in September 2008. Another red flag is that banks often use special-purpose vehicles located abroad, frequently in the Cayman Islands, to structure these trades.

What a great idea! Just package up a bunch of risky assets, wrap them around a credit default swap, and voila! AAA rated, baby. What could go wrong?

Visit site:  

Regulatory Arbitrage Once Again a Growth Industry

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Regulatory Arbitrage Once Again a Growth Industry

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on April 1, 2013

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

By John Upton

As the Obama administration mulls approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, the heavy toxic gunk is already spilling out over America.

Last Wednesday, a southbound train carrying Canadian oil derailed in Minnesota, spilling about 15,000 gallons of tar-sands crude – described by The Washington Post as “a mixture of heavy bitumen and lighter dilutents.”

Two days later, an ExxonMobil pipeline carrying tar-sands oil burst beneath a suburban neighborhood in Arkansas. The exact size of the spill hasn’t yet been determined, but ExxonMobil says it’s preparing to be able to clean up 420,000 gallons, though it doesn’t believe the spill is that large. The oil flooded yards and streets and led to the evacuation of 22 homes in Mayflower, a small community about 20 miles northwest of Little Rock.

Watch a video of the spill:

From Reuters:

[An ExxonMobil] spokesman confirmed the line was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude. That grade is a heavy bitumen crude diluted with lighter liquids to allow it to flow through pipelines, according to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), which referred to Wabasca as “oil sands” in a report.

You may recall that this is not Exxon’s first major oil spill. Just last week, the U.S. Department of Transportation fined the company $1.7 million for safety violations that led to a 2011 oil spill in the Yellowstone River. (As a point of reference, ExxonMobil’s profits last year were $44.9 billion.)

Reuters / Jacob Slaton

Tar-sands oil from an Exxon pipeline is making a big mess in Mayflower, Ark.

Tar-sands oil is especially potent stuff. It’s heavier than standard crude, which causes it to quickly sink and complicates cleanup efforts. It is cut with cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene to thin it out so it can flow through pipes.

The North American oil boom has maxed out the capacity of pipelines that carry the material south to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, so oil companies have begun loading their toxic cargo onto trains even as they lobby the U.S. government to approve Keystone XL.

Some Keystone boosters argued that Wednesday’s train derailment and spill in Minnesota showed the urgent need for the pipeline, because pipelines are supposed to be safer than train shipments.

After Friday’s pipeline spill in Arkansas, that argument looks full of holes.

When it comes to transporting tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, it seems that the only safe option is to not transport it at all. Leave that shit in the ground and plant some wind turbines and solar panels over it.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally posted here – 

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Safer, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

Cheap Ways To Use Solar Power For Your Home

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on March 17, 2013

Many people these days are beginning to take steps to living a greener lifestyle in their homes. There are a growing number of technologies that are being developed to make living a green life easier and more effective. Learn from the following information, the ways to make your home a green home.

Making changes to an existing home is very costly. If you want to start using green energies, you should think about moving or getting a new house built. Look for certain features such as running water or good exposure to the sun and wind when buying a new property or home.

Turn your computer off when you are not using it. This includes anything connected to the computer, such as the printer. When these are on, even if in hibernate mode, they are drawing electricity. When you are done browsing or working, turn off the computer and turn off the strip plug to save electrical energy.

If you know you are going to be leaving your home, set your heating system to go off about a half an hour before you leave, and to turn on again a half an hour before you return home. This way, you are saving energy, but your home will still feel comfortable when you return.

If specific areas of your home feel cold or drafty, then chances are they are not properly sealed or insulated. These deficiencies can greatly increase the cost of heating or cooling your home and are often an easy fix. Seal any holes you identify and get a price estimate for adding insulation to thin walls.

Don’t throw away that coffee grinds- use them to fertilize your plants. Coffee grinds are rich in nitrogen so these make great, healthy plant food. Using coffee grinds as fertilizer keeps them out of the landfill, makes it unnecessary for you to purchase and use chemical plant food, and make your plants grow nicely, adding oxygen to the atmosphere.

Install toilets that have the WaterSense label. These toilets use around 30% less water, and are have been tested for maximum efficiency and performance. The average toilet is flushed around five times a day, and with these WaterSense labeled toilets, about 4,000 gallons of water can be saved a year.

In order to save extra energy around the house, be sure to set your electronics to a power-saving mode when not using them. A power-saving mode will reduce the amount of energy spent by the device. This way, you can save energy and cut down the cost of the electric bill.

Replace an old washing machine with a high-efficiency model for a greener way to do your laundry. High-efficiency machines come in both top-loading and front-loading designs that use less water than standard machines. They also spin clothes at high speeds to wring more water out of them, helping them dry faster.

Whatever your reasons for wanting to go green, stick with them! Saving money is in everyone’s interest, as is working for a cleaner environment. Hopefully, you have learned enough from this article to begin putting green energy to work in your home, to see significant savings and feel better about the impact you have on the environment very soon.

Bailey Riffle is really an article writer with a good knowledge on natural environment in which he published numerous articles. you can see and acquire practical knowledge by visiting his web page in this article Steel Decking Institute. The solutions are really precious for people.

Posted in green energy | Tagged , | Comments Off on Cheap Ways To Use Solar Power For Your Home