Category Archives: American Standard

Greenland, the land of ice and snow, is burning

This is going to sound weird, but there’s a wildfire right now in west Greenland. You know, that huge island of mostly ice? Part of it is on fire.

There’s been nothing even close to this since reliable satellite-based fire detection records began in Greenland in 2000. Very small wildfires can evade satellite detection, and old-timer scientists who have worked in Greenland for decades say that micro-fires there aren’t necessarily uncommon.

This week’s fire, however, is on another level.

“This is the largest wildfire we know of,” says Stef Lhermitte, a satellite expert at Technische Universiteit in Delft, Netherlands, who did some of the initial mapping of the fire. “For a lot of people, it’s been a bit of discovery on the go.” The fire was first spotted by a local aircraft on July 31.

What’s striking about the Greenland fire is that it fits a larger trend of rapid change across the northern reaches of the planet. A 2013 study found that across the entire Arctic, forests are burning at a rate unseen in at least 10,000 years.

By American standards, the Greenland fire is small, covering around 1,200 acres (about two square miles) — about the size of midtown Manhattan. The massive Lodgepole Complex wildfire that scorched eastern Montana in July — the largest fire in the country this year — was more than 200 times bigger. But for Greenland, a fire of this size is so unusual that even scientists who study the huge island don’t really know what to make of it.

The Danish meteorological service (Greenland is technically an autonomously governing part of Denmark) said it has no experts who specialize in Greenland fire. The European Commission has tasked its Emergency Management Service with a rapid mapping of the region of the fire, in part to help local officials assess the risks to public health. Mark Parrington, a meteorologist with the European government, said on Twitter that he “didn’t expect to be adding Greenland into my fire monitoring,” adding that he may need to recalibrate his air pollution models to account for the smoldering way that fire tends to burn in permafrost soil.

Riikka Rinnan, an ecologist at the University of Copenhagen, said her research team had started work earlier this summer on how potential fires could impact Greenland’s tundra, but didn’t expect one so soon. Jessica McCarty, a satellite data expert at Miami University in Ohio, said she’s planning to have one of her students construct what might be the first-ever comprehensive history of fires in Greenland.

And yes, as you might expect, climate change probably made this whole thing more likely.

“Everything we know suggests that fire will increase in the Arctic,” climate scientist Jason Box, whose work focuses on Greenland, told me. “It’s fair to say that it’s part of the pattern of warming. We should see more such fires in Greenland.”

Though west Greenland, where the fire is burning, is a semi-arid region, rainfall and temperatures there have been increasing, helping to foster more dense vegetation. Box says this is part of the “shrubification” of the entire Arctic as temperatures warm and the growing season lengthens. Denser vegetation is making large fires more likely, in combination with the simultaneous tendency for longer and more intense droughts and the rise in thunderstorm likelihood due to erratic weather patterns.

Box says he saw a fire in west Greenland back in 1999. “It’s pretty interesting for Greenland, people don’t think about it as a place where that’s possible — nor did I until I saw it with my own eyes.” Once he realized he was watching a wildfire, he said, “It was like, what the heck? What is going on?”

What set off this blaze? The scientists I spoke with aren’t sure. The primary cause of Arctic wildfires is lightning, but a lightning storm in Greenland would have been news. Thunderstorms typically need warm, humid air for fuel, and both are in short supply so close to the world’s second largest ice sheet.

According to John Kappelen, a Danish meteorologist, the region surrounding the fire has had well below average rainfall since June, making wildfire more likely.

“This time of year, everybody’s going out and picking berries and fishing and hunting,” says Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the Danish meteorological service who conducts frequent fieldwork in Greenland. Maybe someone in the area set a fire that grew into the big blaze. Greenland’s second largest town, Sisimiut, with a population of 5,500, is about 90 miles away.

Mottram says that if the fire is burning in peatland, it could rage for weeks. If the winds shift, soot from the fire could be transported up to the ice sheet, where it might speed local melting in the coming years by darkening the surface of the ice, helping it to absorb more energy from the sun. This is something that scientists like Box and Mottram are spending their careers studying, but up to now, they thought that virtually all the soot that’s making the bright white ice darker was transported there from Canada or Russia. Now, a new source may be emerging.

Should wildfires like this one increase in frequency, we may have just witnessed the start of a new, scary feedback loop.

Jump to original: 

Greenland, the land of ice and snow, is burning

Posted in alo, American Standard, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, Jason, LAI, ONA, Oster, Paradise, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Greenland, the land of ice and snow, is burning

We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Mother Jones

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

As debates go, this one was pretty good. The moderators generally did a good job, allowing the candidates to argue when it made sense, but ending things when it looked like there was nothing useful left to say. This is a lot easier with two people than ten, of course, and also easier when both candidates are relatively civil.

Hillary was more aggressive than I’ve seen her before. He complaint early on that Bernie was slandering her with innuendo and insinuation (and “artful smears”) was tough but, I think, also fair. And I have a feeling Bernie felt a little embarrassed by it. He was certainly careful to pull things back to a civil tone after that. Hillary is not a natural campaigner, but she’s a good debater, and this was Hillary at her pugnacious best.

Obviously foreign affairs are not Bernie’s strong point, but I was still a little surprised at just how poorly prepared he was to say much of anything or to draw much of a contrast with Hillary’s views. Either he really doesn’t know much, or else he thinks his dovish views are losers even among the Democratic base. I won’t pretend that Hillary was a genius on this stuff—almost nobody is on a debate stage—but at least she sounded well briefed and confident.

On financial issues, Bernie was surprisingly weak. This really is his strong point, but he continues to have a hard time getting much beyond platitudes. I get that it’s a debate and 90 seconds isn’t much, but it’s still enough time for a little more detail than “the system is rigged.” Hillary didn’t do much better, but she held her own and gave a strong response to the two (!) questions about her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Overall, I doubt this debate changed many minds. Bernie insisted that we can dream. Hillary insisted that we figure out what’s doable. I’d score it a clear win for Hillary based on her aggressiveness and generally solid answers compared to Bernie’s platitudes and obvious reluctance to attack hard. But I admit this might just be my own biases talking, since Hillary’s approach to politics is closer to mine than Bernie’s.

Debate transcript here.


11:06 – And that’s a wrap.

11:04 – Hillary: We need to “come up with the best answers.” That’s her campaign in a nutshell.

11:02 – No, neither Hillary nor Bernie will pick the other as VP. Come on, Chuck.

10:58 – But Bernie will happily get suckered! It’s campaign finance reform for him.

10:55 – Hillary isn’t going to be suckered into setting a top priority, thus throwing all the others under the bus. Come on, Chuck.

10:47 – I thought this was a 90-minute debate. What’s the deal?

10:44 – Regarding Flint, I will not be happy until either Hillary or Bernie mentions that we now know lead poisoning leads to higher crime rates, “as brilliantly set out in an article by Kevin Drum a couple of years ago.” I will vote for whoever says this first.

10:42 – Bernie on the death penalty: In a violent world, “government should not be part of the killing.” I have to admit I’ve never really understood this particular bit of reasoning.

10:31 – Ah. Hillary now gets to use Colin Powell as backup for her email problems.

10:29 – Hillary is thrilled about all the young people supporting Bernie. OK then.

10:25 – Bernie loves the caucus process? Seriously?

10:17 – Bernie: “Pathetic” that Republicans refused to support VA reform.

10:12 – I hate to say this, but Bernie on North Korea sounds about as well briefed as Donald Trump. Very strange situation. Handful of dictators—or, um, maybe just one. Gotta put pressure on China. “I worry very much about an isolated, paranoid country with atomic bombs.”

10:10 – Bernie does himself no favors on national security. I’m closer to his position than Hillary’s, but Bernie honestly sounds like he’s never given this stuff a moment’s thought. At least Hillary has some views and sounds confident in her abilities.

10:08 – Bernie wagging his finger again. I’m pretty sure the hosts will call on him regardless.

10:06 – Bernie really needs to have a foreign policy other than “I voted against the Iraq War.”

10:05 – Why is there bipartisan loathing of being “the policeman of the world”? What does this even mean?

10:03 – Hillary: we have a very cooperative government in Afghanistan. You bet. Wildly incompetent and corrupt, but pliable.

10:01 – Everyone agrees that a Muslim civil war is the right way to handle the Middle East.

9:59 – Hillary frequently insists on responding even when Bernie hasn’t really left a mark. Leave well enough alone!

9:58 – Hillary provides Shermanesque answer about not sending ground troops to Iraq or Syria.

9:46 – Oh FFS. Is “Release the transcripts!” going to be the next big Hillary “scandal”?

9:44 – Unfortunately, Hillary doesn’t really explain her more complicated financial regulation plan very well. There’s probably no help for that, especially in 90 seconds.

9:42 – I’m with Hillary on reinstating Glass-Steagall. To me, it’s the Democratic equivalent of raising the retirement age to save Social Security: easy to understand, but not the best answer by a long way.

9:41 – Hillary defends her Goldman Sachs speeches competently, but Bernie doesn’t really fight back. He just provides a generic answer about the pernicious power of Wall Street.

9:31 – Hillary is attacking very hard tonight. Bernie voted to deregulate derivatives! Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You think she’s played this game before? Bernie responds by telling people to look up a YouTube.

9:29 – Bernie answers with generic criticism of special interests and money in politics. Not a strong response.

9:27 – Hillary criticizes Bernie for claiming to run a positive campaign, but constantly attacking her “by innuendo, by insinuation.” Then she asks him to stop the “artful smear” he’s been carrying out against her. This is a tough hit on Bernie.

9:26 – Hillary: “I won’t make big promises.” Not sure that came out as well as it should have.

9:23 – I think Hillary missed a chance to say that of course Bernie is a Democrat and he shouldn’t have to defend himself on that score. It would have been a nice moment for her with no downside.

9:19 – Hillary refers to Bernie as “self-appointed gatekeeper” of who’s a progressive. Ouch.

9:17 – Bernie: Obama was a progressive by 2008 standards.

9:15 – Bernie: none of his ideas are radical. True enough, by non-American standards.

9:14 – Good answer from Hillary on whether she’s progressive enough: Under Bernie’s standards, no one in the party is truly progressive.

9:07 – Hillary: “The numbers just don’t add up” for all of Bernie’s proposals.

9:01 – I see that Rachel Maddow is as excited as I am that Martin O’Malley has dropped out.

9:00 – And with that, on with the debate!

8:58 – This is the second election cycle in which I’ve liked both of the Democratic frontrunners. In 2008 I ended up leaning for Obama, which I don’t regret. This year I’m leaning toward Hillary. Both times, however, I’ve been surprised at how fast things turned ugly. But ugly they’ve turned.

8:53 – Last night on Twitter I said that Hillary Clinton had given a terrible answer to the Goldman Sachs speech question. I was immediately besieged with outraged comments about how I was just another Beltway shill who’s always hated Hillary. This morning I wrote that Bernie Sanders was disingenuously pretending not to criticize Clinton over her Wall Street contributions even though he obviously was. I was immediately besieged with outraged comments about how I was just another Beltway shill who’s always been in the bag for Hillary. Welcome to the Democratic primaries.

Taken from: 

We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Posted in alo, American Standard, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

5 Nov 2014 3:31 PM

Share

Share

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

×

This was the year of the fracking ban, at least in local elections: Eight municipal and county-wide bans went to voters in Ohio, Texas, and California on Nov. 4. Considering the money poured in by the opposition, they did pretty darn well: Four out of eight won by a country mile.

California 

Happily for local farmers like Paul Hain, San Benito County’s moratorium on “high-intensity petroleum operations” passed with flying colors (at least by American standards): 57 to 43 percent. And in Mendocino County, Measure S won with even more of the vote: 67 to 33 percent.

In oil-rich Santa Barbara County, however, where oil and gas interests poured nearly $6 million into their campaign against Measure P, the ban lost by margins just as wide: 37 to 63 percent. It’s a big loss for the folks behind the measure, but, as they posted on Facebook, they’re hardly defeated: “This campaign was the beginning of the fight. Not the end!!”

Ohio

Four Ohio towns put fracking bans to voters, too, and one of them took home the gold: Athens, whose citizens had tried and failed to get a measure on the ballot in 2013, overwhelmingly supported one this time that will keep the practice out of city limits. The bans failed in Gates Mills and Kent, though. And while anti-fracking campaigners in Youngstown gave it a fourth shot, after a third proposed ban failed last year, it got royally slammed again. Argh.

Texas

But perhaps the most meaningful results cane from Denton, Texas: The town’s fracking ban is the first ever to pass in Texas, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer (California was No. 3 in crude last year). Denton already has 275 fracking wells, so a moratorium on the practice here says a whole heck of a lot about the future of fracking — and, dare we dream, of fossil fuels?

Denton Mayor Chris Watts anticipated this, claiming that “the vote is not the end of the story.” Oil companies will probably contest it in court, but, he said in a statement, “The City Council will exercise the legal remedies that are available to us should the ordinance be challenged.”

Bring it, Texas Oil, bring it. The people have spoken.

Source:
Record Number of Anti-Fracking Measures on Nov. 4 Ballots

, Inside Climate News.

Why Oil And Gas Giants Are Trying To Buy Three Local Elections In California

, Think Progress.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

See original article here:  

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

Posted in American Standard, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

Obamacare Will Prevent Millions of People From Being Gouged by Hospitals

Mother Jones

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

When President Obama said that if you like your health insurance, you can keep it, he was clearly taking some liberties with the strict truth.1But as Ezra Klein points out this weekend, the reason he pressed this point so hard is that Americans have an understandable fear of losing their health insurance. And why not? You can lose it if you lose your job. Or if you lose access to Medicaid. Or if your insurance company decides to effectively eliminate your plan by jacking up its price. And that’s not even counting the millions of people who don’t have health coverage in the first place.

So, yes, it’s true that Obama was wrong when he guaranteed that every single person could keep their current plan if they wanted to:

What Obamacare comes pretty close to guaranteeing, though, is that everyone who needs health insurance, or who wants health insurance, can get it.

It guarantees that if you lose the plan you liked — perhaps because you were fired from your job, or because you left your job to start a new business, or because your income made you ineligible for Medicaid — you’ll have a choice of new plans you can purchase, you’ll know that no insurer can turn you away, and you’ll be able to get financial help if you need it. In states that accept the Medicaid expansion, it guarantees that anyone who makes less than 133 percent of poverty can get fully subsidized insurance.

Health insurance isn’t such a fraught topic in countries such as Canada and France because people don’t live in constant fear of losing their ability to get routine medical care. A decade from now, that will be true in the U.S., too. But it’s not true yet, and paradoxically, that’s one reason health reform is so difficult. The status quo has left people rightly fearful, and when people are afraid, change is even scarier.

Yep. I want to add one more point to this that doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves: Hospitals routinely charge uninsured patients rates that are 3-4x higher than those paid by insured patients. A heart attack that gets billed—profitably!—to Blue Cross at $50,000, can end up costing you $200,000 if you’re unlucky enough to suffer that heart attack while you’re uninsured. Think about that: for decades, the health care industry has deliberately taken ruthless advantage of the very people who are the weakest and most vulnerable—those who are poor or unemployed—and seems to think that this is a perfectly decent and moral way to conduct business.

It’s not. It’s shameless and obscene. It’s like kicking a beggar and stealing his coat just because you know the cops will never do anything about it.

This is something that Obamacare goes a long way toward fixing. If you’re covered by private insurance through an exchange, you’re not just protected against catastrophic illness. You’re also protected against being charged outrageous rates for non-catastrophic problems—broken legs, asthma attacks, etc.—just because hospitals have the brute power to do so.

Because of Obamacare, you no longer have to fear being shut out of the insurance market. But that’s not all. You no longer have to fear being gouged and possibly bankrupted because you’ve been shut out of the insurance market. Access to reasonable rates2 is one of the key benefits that Obamacare delivers to millions, and it deserves more attention.

1Though, let’s be honest, not that big a liberty. The vast, vast majority of people will see little or no change in their coverage thanks to Obamacare, and of the ones who will, most will be able to buy similar or better coverage at a lower price. The problem of rate shock isn’t an invented one, but it is a much exaggerated one.

2Reasonable by American standards, anyway.

Visit source – 

Obamacare Will Prevent Millions of People From Being Gouged by Hospitals

Posted in American Standard, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obamacare Will Prevent Millions of People From Being Gouged by Hospitals