Author Archives: pfmufle

Guy Buys First New iPhone, Immediately Drops It On National TV

Mother Jones

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

It’s new iPhone day! All around the globe thousands of hungry ducks are lining up to be one of the first few to get their hands on Cupertino’s fresh new phones. In Perth, “a boy called Jack” got the very first one. Naturally, he was swarmed by media, which led to this:

Thankfully, the iPhone was not hurt.

Mother Jones Senior Australian James West was not immediately available for comment.

Taken from:

Guy Buys First New iPhone, Immediately Drops It On National TV

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Guy Buys First New iPhone, Immediately Drops It On National TV

How to Immortalize Your Cat or Dog

Read article here: 

How to Immortalize Your Cat or Dog

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Immortalize Your Cat or Dog

21 Percent of Homes Emit 50 Percent of CO2

Mother Jones

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

Not all homes pollute equally—even in the relatively homogeneous world of a mid-sized town in Switzerland. A study of a village of 3,000 finds that 21 percent of households belched half the town’s greenhouse gases. The biggest factors running up the carbon tabs of the disproportionate polluters: the size of their houses and the length of their commutes. Airline travel wasn’t factored into this research.

The energy people use to power their homes and drive their lives accounts for more than 70 percent of CO2 emissions, write the authors in Environmental Science & Technology. But in addressing that problem policymakers and environmentalists mostly point their fingers at the supply side: power plants, heating and cooling systems, and the fuel efficiency of cars. The Swiss researchers chose to parse it differently and developed a lifecycle assessment model of how energy consumption for housing and car travel, per household and per capita, impacts greenhouse gas emissions.

Their conclusion: â&#128;&#139;energy conservation in a small number of households could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the super polluting homes cut their emissions in half, the authors write, “the total emissions of the community would be reduced by 25 percent.”

Be interesting to see the model these researchers developed used to compare the larger income and lifestyle gaps typical in US towns and cities.

I wrote more about the power of individual choices in combating emissions in Diet for a Warm Planet.

Link: 

21 Percent of Homes Emit 50 Percent of CO2

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 21 Percent of Homes Emit 50 Percent of CO2

Wind industry and enviros team up to study bird deaths

Wind industry and enviros team up to study bird deaths

Shutterstock

This eagle is feeling better already.

Amid growing controversies over birds killed by turbines, a handful of big wind energy companies are teaming up with conservationists to pool data that could help address the problem.

The American Wind Wildlife Institute, a nonprofit partnership of 22 wind companies and nine green groups, has a new project that aims to round up, analyze, and eventually publish hitherto secret data on bird kills at wind power developments. Midwest Energy News reports:

“Our goal is not to identify problems to prosecute,” said Abby Arnold, AWWI’s executive director. “Our goal is to develop a really good analytic tool that experts — biologists, statisticians, ecologists — and the wind industry can use to understand what these impacts are, where they’re occurring, and how we can address them.” …

Most wind developers are required to conduct wildlife impact studies before and after projects are built. The results are typically seen by local regulators but never broadly disseminated beyond that, in part because wind companies worry opponents will use the results in anti-wind campaigns.

After a successful pilot project, AWWI has started collecting post-construction wildlife impact studies from its members, which include some of the nation’s largest renewable developers. GE Energy, Horizon Wind, and Iberdrola Renewables are among the founding partners …

The American Wind Energy Association passed a resolution in support of the project two years ago, encouraging its members to participate. A big reason why wind companies may be embracing the project is that the data will be made anonymous before it’s shared with researchers or the public.

The project could help wind energy companies figure out where best to place their turbines, and which types of turbines they should use, to minimize impacts on birds and bats.

The wind industry still doesn’t rank as a big bird killer:

[A] March 2013 study published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin … said more than 573,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year. The American Wind Energy Association maintains that the actual number is less than 200,000 birds annually.

Either way, the numbers are small compared to other known causes of bird fatalities.

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [PDF], cars may kill 60 million birds or more each year. Building windows are to blame for more than 97 million bird deaths annually. Communication towers conservatively kill 4 to 5 million birds per year, and it could be ten times more. Power line fatalities could be “as high as 174 million deaths annually.” Pesticides poison at least 72 million birds annually, and up to two million are killed each year in oil and wastewater pits.

One study found domestic cats kill 39 million birds annually in Wisconsin alone, with the national total likely hundreds of millions per year.

Still, if the wind industry gets smarter about siting turbines, that can only be good for wildlife — and it should help the industry itself by quelling opposition from conservationists.

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

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Follow this link – 

Wind industry and enviros team up to study bird deaths

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wind industry and enviros team up to study bird deaths

Study: Trees save at least a life a year in each of 10 major U.S. cities

Study: Trees save at least a life a year in each of 10 major U.S. cities

Keith Wagner

These trees in Central Park are doing their arboreal best to save the lives of New Yorkers.

Next time you hug a city-dwelling tree, be sure to whisper quiet thanks for the lives it is helping to save.

Researchers recently calculated that urban forests help save one or more people from dying every year in each of 10 major cities studied.

Trees growing in cities help clean the air of fine particulate air pollution — soot, smoke, dust, dirt — that can lodge in human lungs and cause health problems. Trees clear 71 tons of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from Atlanta’s air annually. And they suck up enough pollution to save seven or eight lives every year in New York City.

These are the findings of researchers with the U.S. Forest Service and Davey Institute, published in the journal Environmental Pollution [PDF]. They calculated the health and economic benefits of air-cleansing urban forests in 10 U.S. cities and found that trees save lives, reduce hospital visits, and reduce the number of days taken off work. They do that mainly by sucking pollutants out of the air. Economic benefits, mostly from reduced mortality, ranged from $1.1 million a year in Syracuse, N.Y., to $60.1 million a year in New York City.

From a Forest Service press release:

Overall, the greatest effect of trees on reducing health impacts of PM2.5 occurred in New York due to its relatively large human population and the trees’ moderately high removal rate and reduction in pollution concentration. The greatest overall removal by trees was in Atlanta due to its relatively high percent tree cover and PM2.5 concentrations.

And these findings cover only the effects of cleaning up fine particulate pollution. The study didn’t investigate the economic and life-giving benefits of trees sucking up larger soot particles, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, or other types of air pollution.

“This research clearly illustrates that America’s urban forests are critical capital investments helping produce clear air and water; reduce energy costs; and, making cities more livable,” Forest Service researcher Michael Rains said in the press release.

The study comes after some of the researchers’ Forest Service colleagues discovered a correlation between loss of trees and higher human death rates, which they described in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. As we told you last week, the scientists found that the more trees there are in an area, the less likely people there are to die.

More hugs for trees, please.

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: Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link: 

Study: Trees save at least a life a year in each of 10 major U.S. cities

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study: Trees save at least a life a year in each of 10 major U.S. cities

China begins carbon trading

China begins carbon trading

Shutterstock

The latest knockoff to be produced in China is the carbon credit.

On Tuesday, the nation’s first carbon-trading program was launched in Shenzhen. Under the small pilot project, 635 companies responsible for 38 percent of the city’s carbon pollution began trading emission allowances. The program is scheduled to be expanded to six other areas by next year and then to the whole country before 2020. It will help China meet a national carbon cap that’s expected to be imposed by 2016.

China’s carbon-trading plans are modeled on similar programs underway in Europe, Australia, California, New England, and other large economies. In fact, carbon trading seems to be catching on with governments everywhere — except the United States.

Though the Chinese program is starting off small, it’s expected to have big ramifications. From Reuters:

While the exchange in the southern city of Shenzhen will not immediately lead to a big cut in China’s emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gas, now the world’s highest, it does still represent a statement of intent by Beijing, campaigners said.

“This is just a baby step when you look at the total quantity of emissions, but it enables China to establish institutions for carbon controls for the first time,” said Li Yan, head of environmental group Greenpeace’s climate and energy campaign in China.

This is one Chinese knockoff that environmentalists and indeed the whole world can welcome.

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

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More here: 

China begins carbon trading

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China begins carbon trading

Ed Rendell Backs Fracking, Fails to Mention His Industry Ties

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell took to the New York Daily News op-ed page Wednesday with a message to local officials: stop worrying and learn to love fracking.

As New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo agonizes over whether to allow the controversial natural gas drilling technique, Rendell invoked his own experience as a Democratic governor who presided over a fracking boom. New York state, Rendell argued, has a major part to play in the nation’s fracking “revolution” 2014 and it can do so safely. He rejected what he called the “false choice” of “natural gas versus the environment.”

What Rendell’s passionate plea failed to note was this: since stepping down as governor in 2011, he has worked as a paid consultant to a private equity firm with investments in the natural gas industry.

The op-ed piece was widely noted in other media outlets, and Cuomo wound up being asked about it during a radio appearance on Wednesday. The New York State Petroleum Council promptly issued a press release hailing Rendell’s “strong and confident argument.”

Continue Reading »

Jump to original:  

Ed Rendell Backs Fracking, Fails to Mention His Industry Ties

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ed Rendell Backs Fracking, Fails to Mention His Industry Ties

This Company Is Kickstarter for Solar Power

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

On a sunny February morning, Michele Clark climbed up to the roof of her office in the Fruitvale neighborhood of Oakland, California, to show off 196 black, gleaming solar panels. The installation, completed last December, is providing 47 kilowatts of power for Youth Empowerment Partnership, a group that provides education and job training for at-risk teens and young adults in Oakland.

Clark, the group’s executive director, had dreamed of solar panels on YEP’s headquarters but couldn’t find a way to pay for them. “We have this big sunny roof,” she said, “but we didn’t have the expertise, the connections, or even the thought process of how you would put this together.”

Then Clark connected with Mosaic, an Oakland-based startup company that connects solar-power-seeking businesses and nonprofits with hundreds of investors. Soon, YEP had brand new solar panels, a $40,000 project paid for by 51 individuals.

Here’s how Mosaic works: Investors contribute a minimum of $25 to a project. Over the next 5 to 10 years—depending on the project—the investors will make that money back, plus interest. The return on the investment ranges from 4.5 to 6.4 percent annually, depending on the project. They can support projects in any state, but right now only accredited investors and people in New York and California can invest in the projects, due to regulatory barriers in other states. In order to qualify, projects must be for organizations that are financially stable, have adequate insurance, and benefit the wider community in some way. Recent projects include affordable housing projects, a convention center, several nonprofits, a grocery store, and a Native American reservation.

Mosaic’s founders want to do for solar energy what Kickstarter has done for bands and independent films, or what Kiva has done for upstart projects in the developing world. But Mosaic’s model goes beyond most other crowdsourcing sites, by not only allowing supporters to invest in the solar project but also make a profit doing so.

Billy Parish, Mosaic’s cofounder and president, describes his company’s goal as “getting millions of people tangibly invested in building the clean energy future.” Before Mosaic, Parish, a wiry 31-year-old, spent years as a youth climate advocate and organizer, and was one of the founders of the Energy Action Coalition.

Parish points to polls showing that 89 percent of Americans support the development and use of solar power. But there are still only 300,000 solar power systems installed around the US, generating 0.1 percent of all electricity. That’s because most businesses can’t afford solar panels on their own, and major banks have not shown a tremendous amount of interest in funding relatively small solar projects.

“It’s substantially at this point a deployment problem,” said Parish. “The biggest thing you need is money to make those projects happen.”

So far Mosaic has raised more than $1 million for 12 different projects—fully funding all of them within just a few days of opening them up to investors. One of the appeals to this kind of investing, as Mosaic pitches it, is that contributors can actually see their money at work—very different from the convoluted financial products offered on Wall Street.

Initially, Mosaic worked on a philanthropic model, where people donated a sum of money to a project that they would eventually be repaid. (YEP’s panels were funded this way.) Mosaic moved to this return on investment model in January and lowered the minimum amount of money needed to participate from $100 to $25. They saw an immediate response. It took a year and a half to raise the first $350,000 under the old model, said Lisa Curtis, Mosaic’s communications director, but the new profit-minded model yielded $300,000 in investments in one day. “I think there’s something to be said for enlightened self-interest,” said Curtis.

That enlightened self-interest, they hope, can be harnessed to bring solar energy to community-based organizations like YEP, which will spend the next 10 years paying investors back, but the group is already seeing results. The power bill, which used to run $1,350 a month, is now down to about $150. YEP is also incorporating the panels into its job training program, showing students how the system works and, they hope, inspiring some to seek out jobs in renewable energy.

Curtis hopes that the financial incentive of investing might also inspire people to learn more about climate change and alternative energy. “If we’re able to reach those millions more people who normally wouldn’t care about environmental causes to put their money to work creating clean energy,” said Curtis, “then we will have succeeded.”

Mother Jones
Original source:

This Company Is Kickstarter for Solar Power

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Company Is Kickstarter for Solar Power

Farmland prices soar — along with farm debt

Farmland prices soar — along with farm debt

While small-scale producers of fruits and vegetables are scraping by, it’s a whole ‘nother story for corn and soy farmers. (It’s always a whole ‘nother story for corn and soy farmers, really.) Well-oiled subsidies, overseas demand, ethanol like whoa, plus a drop in production thanks to the drought are all pushing crop prices up — and, in turn, prices for the land those crops are grown on.

Shutterstock

The New York Times reports on the gleeful farmers, speculating investors, and impending economic doom.

Across the American heartland, farmland prices are soaring. In places like Waco, Neb., and Chickasaw County, Iowa, where the boom-and-bust cycle of farming reaches deep into the psyche, some families are selling the land that they have worked for generations, to cash in while they can. …

Sensing opportunity, investment firms are buying, too. David Taylor, of Oskaloosa, Kan., said he was saddened to sell his family’s farm but that the prices were too good to resist. …

“I bawled like a baby,” Mr. Taylor, 59, said. His crop-producing fields sold for $10,100 an acre.

In Iowa, despite the drought last year, farmland prices have nearly doubled since 2009, to an average $8,296 an acre, far surpassing the last boom’s peak in 1979. In Nebraska, the price of irrigated land has also doubled since 2009.

That’s given farmers who’ve chosen to stay a whole lot of value to borrow against, and borrow they are. Farmers’ debt load has risen almost a third since 2007.

Regulators say it is difficult to determine exactly how much farm debt exists, because much of it involves debt owed to various vendors and suppliers.

“In so many ways, we’re blind to some of that information,” said Jason Henderson, a vice president at the Omaha branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

What banksters aren’t blind to is the potential for profit. More investors, including foreign banks, are moving in to snap up high-priced land and rent it back to farmers. The whole dynamic smacks of a bubble — one that deserves to pop, but that will make a big mess for the folks invested in it.

“There are some opportunities out there, but man, it’s tough,” said Shonda Warner, a former Goldman Sachs trader who returned to her Midwest farm roots in 2006, when she started Chess Ag Full Harvest Partners, a private equity firm that specializes in farmland. Like many other investors, Ms. Warner’s fund buys land and then rents it to farmers. As land prices have risen sharply, so have rents.

“I worry about people who are buying farmland and expecting to get big rents, $500 or even $600 in the Midwest,” Ms. Warner said. “What happens when corn prices fall next year and they can’t pay? What are you going to do? Take their television set?”

Uh, yeah, Warner, that’s exactly what the debt collectors will do. And then, ironically, those now TV-less ex-farmers will only be able to afford cheap processed foods and meat from animals fed corn and soy. Oh, I almost forgot: Happy National Agriculture Day!

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

This article is from:  

Farmland prices soar — along with farm debt

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Farmland prices soar — along with farm debt