Author Archives: PhoenixBrook3

Quote of the Day: Google Explains How to Act Normal

Mother Jones

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

From Andrea Peterson, summarizing some avuncular corporate advice to users of Google Glass:

With a few of these dos and don’ts, it seems like Google is trying to explain to users how to act like a normal human being in public settings.

In some industries, I guess that’s a legitimate topic for a FAQ.

Read More:  

Quote of the Day: Google Explains How to Act Normal

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Google Explains How to Act Normal

U.N. climate chief calls for fossil-fuel divestment

U.N. climate chief calls for fossil-fuel divestment

Arend Kuester

Take your money out of dirty energy and put it into clean energy. No, that’s not 350.org talking (not this time, at least) — that’s from Christiana Figueres, chief of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

On Wednesday, Figueres called on big firms that manage trillions of dollars of investments to dump fossil fuel stocks in favor of greener alternatives, arguing that such a shift would help the firms’ clients as well as the climate.

“The pensions, life insurances and nest eggs of billions of ordinary people depend on the long-term security and stability of institutional investment funds,” she said. “Climate change increasingly poses one of the biggest long-term threats to those investments and the wealth of the global economy.”

From The Guardian:

The United Nations climate chief has urged global financial institutions to triple their investments in clean energy to reach the $1 trillion a year mark that would help avert a climate catastrophe. …

“From where we are to where we need to be, we need to triple, and we need to do that — over the next five to 10 years would be best — but certainly by 2030,” she said.

The International Energy Agency said four years ago it would take $1tn a year in new infrastructure projects by 2030 to make the shift from a coal- and oil-based economy to the cleaner fuels and technologies that would help keep warming below the dangerous threshold of 2C.

Unfortunately, clean-energy investments are nowhere near that level yet, as Mother Jones reports:

Investment is on the decline for the second year in a row, according to new statistics released yesterday by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In 2013, investors worldwide put $254 billion into clean energy technology, 20 percent below 2011′s record high.

A new program from SolarCity could help a little. The rooftop-solar company announced yesterday that it will now let individuals and small institutions invest in its projects. That won’t make up the three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar shortfall in needed clean energy investments, but hey, it’s something.


Source
UN climate chief urges investors to bolster global warming fight, Reuters
UN climate chief calls for tripling of clean energy investment, The Guardian

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: 

U.N. climate chief calls for fossil-fuel divestment

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.N. climate chief calls for fossil-fuel divestment

Medicaid Expansion Is a Stealth Success, and That’s Just Fine

Mother Jones

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

Obamacare ended the year with about 2 million people who signed up through the insurance marketplaces and maybe three times that many who signed up for Medicaid. That makes the Medicaid expansion a big success, but neither party really wants to admit it:

To Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, this exposes a core reality of U.S. health-care politics. “Republicans don’t like entitlement programs, and Democrats want to portray the ACA as mostly a marketplace solution based on private insurance and not another expansion of a government program,” he said, “so neither side wants to emphasize the ACA’s success enrolling people in Medicaid even though it may be the law’s biggest achievement so far in terms of expanding coverage.”

This has left both the Obama administration and Republicans in a tight spot. The White House can’t really tout the Medicaid expansion because it’ll revive fears on the right that Obamacare is really a stealthy effort to create a single-payer health-care system, and it’ll arouse criticism on the left that the administration should have expanded Medicaid to all.

As for Republicans, they can’t admit the Medicaid expansion is going well because doing so is dangerously close to advocating a single-payer health-care system. The exchanges, marred by their troubled introduction, are also a problem as they are a Republican idea, enshrined in Rep. Paul Ryan’s health-care bill.

I think I’d analyze this a bit differently. I don’t really have a sense that much of anyone associates Medicaid expansion with a push for single-payer. Rather, Democrats don’t want to talk about it because Medicaid is a program for the poor, and they don’t want middle-class voters thinking that Obamacare is just another way to funnel their tax dollars into welfare programs for other people. Likewise, Republicans oppose Medicaid expansion simply because they don’t like entitlement programs; they don’t like higher taxes; and they’ve always wanted to block-grant Medicaid and starve it to death. I don’t think it’s really any more complicated than that.

In any case, I’m fine with this. I think Medicaid expansion is great, but unlike a lot of lefties, I also think it’s a dead end. It’s not going to lead to single-payer, and it’s never going to be a template for future health care reforms. The marketplaces, despite all their problems, have far more potential to eventually lead to health care coverage for all. I think they also have more potential to produce delivery reforms down the road and to rein in cost growth. For that reason, I’m OK with the Medicaid expansion staying under the radar. That’s a fine place for it.

View the original here: 

Medicaid Expansion Is a Stealth Success, and That’s Just Fine

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Medicaid Expansion Is a Stealth Success, and That’s Just Fine

Quote of the Day: Repealing Obamacare is Bipartisan, Baby

Mother Jones

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

From the après-revolución celebration of the House vote defunding Obamacare:

“It wasn’t just a group of Republicans,” said Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, “but it was a bipartisan vote. Let me state that again, because I want make sure you write it correctly.” His colleagues, who have becomes experts at forcing McCarthy to whip a conservative bill instead of a compromise that can pass, laughed and applauded. “It was a bipartisan vote!”

Roger that. The bill passed with 230 votes. A grand total of two of those votes came from Democrats, both of whom voted against Obamacare in the first place. That’s bipartisan, baby!

Link – 

Quote of the Day: Repealing Obamacare is Bipartisan, Baby

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Repealing Obamacare is Bipartisan, Baby

14 Pieces of Handmade or Upcycled Dishware

Original link: 

14 Pieces of Handmade or Upcycled Dishware

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 14 Pieces of Handmade or Upcycled Dishware

Crude on the tracks: Oil spills from trains skyrocket

Crude on the tracks: Oil spills from trains skyrocket

As more oil is being shipped by train across North America, more oil is being spilled from trains. EnergyWire reports:

The number of spills and other accidents from railroad cars carrying crude oil has skyrocketed in recent years, up from one or two a year early in the previous decade to 88 last year.

Most of the spills are relatively small — nothing like the deadly disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, earlier this month — but with oil shipments on the rise, there’s cause to be concerned.

Oil production has increased thanks to fracking and other drilling technologies, but North America’s pipeline network hasn’t kept up, so railroads are stepping in to fill the void, especially in areas not served by pipelines. Rail transport is more expensive, but it doesn’t require new infrastructure or permits. U.S. railroads have already moved 40 percent more crude and refined product this year than in 2012.

Reuters reports:

With that growth has come a number of high-profile spills and accidents, many on Canadian Pacific Railway’s network, which runs through Alberta, the largest oil exporter to the United States, and the Bakken field [in North Dakota].

Canadian Pacific suffered the industry’s first serious spill in late March, when 14 tanker cars derailed near Parkers Prairie, Minnesota, and leaked 15,000 gallons of crude. Regulators have not released the results of their investigation into the incident, and Canadian Pacific declined to comment.

Critics point out that old tank cars can puncture easily, and that trains carrying heavy oil loads can wear down railroad tracks.

But it’s difficult to compare the safety of railroad shipments versus pipeline shipments. Edward Whittingham, director of the Canadian environmental group Pembina Institute, told The New York Times earlier this month that the methods are “equally unsafe.” While rail spills are more frequent, they generally result in less oil spilled. In comparison, pipeline spills can be both more difficult to detect and greater in volume. More from EnergyWire:

Federal law requires railroads to report smaller crude oil spills than pipelines, which rail officials say makes their total numbers look higher. Pipelines must report spills of 5 gallons or more. Of the 88 rail spills last year, 23 were 5 gallons or more.

Gee. If only there were some source of energy that didn’t need to be transported thousands of miles and didn’t pose a constant risk of mass ecological contamination. Let me know if you hear of one.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

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

Visit source: 

Crude on the tracks: Oil spills from trains skyrocket

Posted in Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Crude on the tracks: Oil spills from trains skyrocket

Turtle ‘Herpes’ and the Rescue of Captain Hook

Veerle D.

on

Are You a Mosquito Magnet? Blame Your Blood

2 minutes ago

customize your newsletter

causes & news
animal welfare
global warming
environment & wildlife
human rights
women’s rights
news
submit news story
healthy living
food & recipes
health & wellness
healthy home
family life
true beauty
pets
shopping
take action
browse petitions
create a petition
daily action
volunteer
jobfinder
click to donate
community & sharing
people
groups
singles
photos
blogs
polls
ecards
my care2
my account
my groups
my page
my friends
my petitionsite
my messages
join care2
about us
advertise
partnerships
careers
press
contact us
terms of service
privacy
subscription center
help
rss feeds

Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved

healthy living
food
health
love + sex
nature
pets
spirit
home
life
family
green
do good
all recipes
appetizers & snacks
basics
desserts
drinks
eating for health
entrees
green kitchen tips
raw
side dishes
soups & salads
vegan
vegetarian
videos
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES
AYURVEDA
CONDITIONS
DIET & NUTRITION
FITNESS
GENERAL HEALTH
HEALTHY AGING
Mental Wellness
MEN’S HEALTH
NATURAL REMEDIES
WOMEN’S HEALTH
VIDEOS
dating
friendship
relationships
sex
videos
environment
lawns & gardens
natural pest control
outdoor activities
wildlife
videos
Adoptable Pets
Animal Rights
Behavior & Communication
Cats
Dogs
Everyday Pet Care
Humor & Inspiration
Less Common Pets
Pet Health
Cute Pet Photos
Safety
Wildlife
Remedies and Treatments
Videos
Biorhythms
Deepak Chopra’s Tips
Exercises
Global Healing
Guidance
Inspiration
Peace
Self-Help
Spirituality & Technology
Videos
home
life
family
beauty
green
do good
crafts & designs
news
videos
conscious consumer
blogs
astrology
my favorites
my Care2 main
my account
my butterfly rewards
my click to donate
my eCards
my friends
my groups
my kudos
my messages
my news
my page
my petitionsite
my photos
my sharebook
my subscriptions
my thank you notes

Visit site: 

Turtle ‘Herpes’ and the Rescue of Captain Hook

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Turtle ‘Herpes’ and the Rescue of Captain Hook

Here’s an easy way to protect coastal communities from rising seas and storms

Here’s an easy way to protect coastal communities from rising seas and storms

Shutterstock

Natural protection against rising seas, or development site in waiting?

Protecting nature is the best way of protecting ourselves from rising tides and storm surges, according to new research.

Sand dunes, wetlands, coral reefs, mangroves, oyster beds, and other shoreline habitats that ring America help to protect two-thirds of the coastlines of the continental U.S. from hurricanes and other such hazards.

Developers see these coastal areas and think — *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* — opportunity. They want to replace shoreline habitats with waterfront homes, shipping channels, highways, and other delights of urbanism and commerce, along with hulking concrete structures designed to keep the rising seas at bay.

Or, another idea would be to leave nature intact and let it continue to shelter us.

The latter approach would, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change, be the superior option for protecting lives and property in most of the nation’s coastal areas.

Led by Stanford University’s Natural Capital Project, researchers mapped the intensity of hazards posed to communities living along America’s coastlines from rising seas and ferocious storms now and in the decades to come. They examined the hazards those communities would face in the year 2100 with and without the coastal habitats left intact. Here is what they found:

Habitat loss would double the extent of coastline highly exposed to storms and sea-level rise, making an additional 1.4 million people now living within 1 km of the coast vulnerable. The number of poor families, elderly people and total property value highly exposed to hazards would also double if protective habitats were lost.

The research team’s map shows areas where natural systems would be most effective for sheltering lives and properties. From ClimateWire:

The East Coast and Gulf Coast would feel the largest impacts from depleted ecosystems, because they have denser populations and are more vulnerable to sea-level rise and storm surge.

Florida would see the largest increase of people exposed to hazards by 2100 under one sea-level rise scenario highlighted by the researchers. If coastal habitats were preserved, about 500,000 Floridians would face intermediate and high risk from disasters, compared with almost 900,000 people if the habitats disappeared.

New York sees one of the biggest jumps as a percentage of people facing risk under the same scenario. With habitat, a little more than 200,000 people would face high risk, compared with roughly 550,000 people without habitat.

But what’s wrong with building seawalls, levees, and such? Couldn’t such infrastructure allow builders to develop the shorelines safely, keeping rising waters at bay? The paper explains some of the problems with that approach:

In the United States — where 23 of the nation’s 25 most densely populated counties are coastal — the combination of storms and rising seas is already putting valuable property and large numbers of people in harm’s way. The traditional approach to protecting towns and cities has been to ‘harden’ shorelines. Although engineered solutions are necessary and desirable in some contexts, they can be expensive to build and maintain, and construction may impair recreation, enhance erosion, degrade water quality and reduce the production of fisheries.

So let’s maybe thank nature for protecting us by leaving it intact, yeah?

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

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source: 

Here’s an easy way to protect coastal communities from rising seas and storms

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s an easy way to protect coastal communities from rising seas and storms

5 Great Plants for the Office

earth911

Source article:  

5 Great Plants for the Office

Posted in FF, GE, oven, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Great Plants for the Office

Benghazi and the Video: Where the Talking Points Came From

Mother Jones

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

Are you tired of Benghazi! Me too. But today, Bob Somerby points me toward an intriguing little tidbit that I either missed or never knew about.

As you know, one of the key criticisms coming from Republicans is that Susan Rice, in her Sunday show appearances after the Benghazi attacks, wrongly blamed the violence on anger over the “Innocence of Muslims” video. As it happens, she didn’t actually do that, but she did say that the Benghazi attacks began as a “copycat” of the Cairo demonstrations the same day, which themselves were based on anger over the video. Still, why did she do even that? Wasn’t it obvious that these were preplanned Al Qaeda terrorist attacks?

In the past, I’ve pointed to a New York Times piece written a month after the attacks that reported from the ground in Benghazi. And the Times piece says that residents of Benghazi did indeed believe that the video played a role: “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video.”

But hey—that’s the New York Times, well-known liberal apologist for the Obama regime. What do more reliable media reports have to say? Well, here’s Guy Taylor of the conservative Washington Times, writing on the day after the Benghazi attacks:

Speculation surged Wednesday through Washington’s foreign policy and diplomatic communities about whether the attack in Benghazi was the result of a long-planned attack by a terrorist group, perhaps with al Qaeda ties.

Officials at the White House and the State Department offered few details of their investigation. But in telephone interviews with The Washington Times, several residents in Benghazi said there had been two distinctly different groups involved in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post.

The residents described a scene that began as a relatively peaceful demonstration against a film produced in the United States that had been deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.

The situation did not turn violent until a group of heavily armed militants showed up and “hijacked” the protest, the residents said. The original group of protesters was joined by a separate group of men armed with rocket-propelled-grenade launchers.

In hindsight, this appears to have been wrong. But at the time, this was what people actually in Benghazi were reporting. Beyond that, every single quote from an administration source in Taylor’s dispatch suggests that (a) the battle scene was chaotic and (b) everyone is still trying to piece together what actually happened. This one is typical: “We frankly don’t have a full picture of what may have been going on outside the compound walls before the firing began,” said one senior Obama administration official.

Bottom line: from the start, the CIA talking points said that the violence in Benghazi was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo”—protests that themselves were motivated by anger over the “Innocence of Muslims” video. In addition, multiple sources reported that eyewitnesses thought the Benghazi violence was directly motivated by the video, not just indirectly via the Cairo protests. Republicans immediately tried to disparage this reporting, but not because they had any more facts than anyone else. They made an issue of it because, on the night of the attacks, Mitt Romney foolishly released a statement that falsely accused Obama of responding to Cairo and Benghazi by apologizing for the video. After that, Republicans had to circle the wagons and insist that any mention of the video was appeasement of Al Qaeda. After all, there was an election coming up, and even when your candidate does something contemptible, you have to man the barricades.

View original article:  

Benghazi and the Video: Where the Talking Points Came From

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Benghazi and the Video: Where the Talking Points Came From