Visit site –
In Sheridan County, farmers managed to slash irrigation by 20 percent without taking a punch in the wallet, according to a new economic analysis.
The wells in Sheridan County sip from the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground lake that stretches from South Dakota to Texas. It happens to be rapidly depleting.
“I’d rather irrigate 10 inches a year for 30 years than put on 30 inches for 10 years,” farmer Roch Meier told Kansas Agland. “I want it for my grandkids.”
Compared to neighbors who didn’t cut back, Sheridan farmers pumped up 23 percent less water. While they harvested 1.2 percent less than their neighbors, in the end, they had 4.3 percent higher profits.
Using less water, it turns out, just makes good business sense. It takes a lot of expensive electricity to lift tons of water up hundreds of feet through the ground. The farmers frequently checked soil moisture with electronic probes, as Circle of Blue reports. They obsessively watched weather forecasts to avoid irrigating before rain. Some switched from soy to sorghum, which requires less water. Some planted a little less corn.
If farmers in western Kansas sign on and cut water use just a bit more (25 to 35 percent), it might be enough to stabilize the aquifer.
Visit site:
Buckle up, Trump: The kids’ climate change suit is cleared for trial.
In Sheridan County, farmers managed to slash irrigation by 20 percent without taking a punch in the wallet, according to a new economic analysis.
The wells in Sheridan County sip from the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground lake that stretches from South Dakota to Texas. It happens to be rapidly depleting.
“I’d rather irrigate 10 inches a year for 30 years than put on 30 inches for 10 years,” farmer Roch Meier told Kansas Agland. “I want it for my grandkids.”
Compared to neighbors who didn’t cut back, Sheridan farmers pumped up 23 percent less water. While they harvested 1.2 percent less than their neighbors, in the end, they had 4.3 percent higher profits.
Using less water, it turns out, just makes good business sense. It takes a lot of expensive electricity to lift tons of water up hundreds of feet through the ground. The farmers frequently checked soil moisture with electronic probes, as Circle of Blue reports. They obsessively watched weather forecasts to avoid irrigating before rain. Some switched from soy to sorghum, which requires less water. Some planted a little less corn.
If farmers in western Kansas sign on and cut water use just a bit more (25 to 35 percent), it might be enough to stabilize the aquifer.
Continue reading:
Kansas farmers tried cutting water use, and guess what? They saved money.
In a ruling this week, Judge William Alsup said that plaintiffs can sue greenhouse-gas emitters in federal court. That’s a big reversal. So far, the courts have held that it’s up to the EPA and lawmakers — not judges — to bring polluters into line.
In this case, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued a bunch of oil companies for contributing to climate change, raising sea levels and damaging their waterfronts. Because federal courts had previously said they wouldn’t regulate polluters, the cities were trying to move their lawsuit into the California court. If federal court wouldn’t punish polluters, the lawyers figured, maybe state court would.
Alsup denied the cities’ motion to move to state court. But instead of bowing to precedent and punting responsibility over to the EPA, he’s letting the lawsuit go to trial — in federal court.
“[The oil companies] got what they wanted; but they may be sorry they did,” said Ken Adams, lawyer for the Center for Climate Integrity, in a statement.
Of course, after opening this door, the courts could very well slam it shut again. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2011 that it’s the job of Congress and regulators, not the court, to police emissions. But that decision concerned an American electric utility. Alsup said this case was different because the cities are suing international corporations.
View post –
Residents of an Alabama town are saying the EPA doesn’t care about black people.
In a ruling this week, Judge William Alsup said that plaintiffs can sue greenhouse-gas emitters in federal court. That’s a big reversal. So far, the courts have held that it’s up to the EPA and lawmakers — not judges — to bring polluters into line.
In this case, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued a bunch of oil companies for contributing to climate change, raising sea levels and damaging their waterfronts. Because federal courts had previously said they wouldn’t regulate polluters, the cities were trying to move their lawsuit into the California court. If federal court wouldn’t punish polluters, the lawyers figured, maybe state court would.
Alsup denied the cities’ motion to move to state court. But instead of bowing to precedent and punting responsibility over to the EPA, he’s letting the lawsuit go to trial — in federal court.
“[The oil companies] got what they wanted; but they may be sorry they did,” said Ken Adams, lawyer for the Center for Climate Integrity, in a statement.
Of course, after opening this door, the courts could very well slam it shut again. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2011 that it’s the job of Congress and regulators, not the court, to police emissions. But that decision concerned an American electric utility. Alsup said this case was different because the cities are suing international corporations.
Link:
Cape Town may have conserved enough water to avoid running out this year.
In a ruling this week, Judge William Alsup said that plaintiffs can sue greenhouse-gas emitters in federal court. That’s a big reversal. So far, the courts have held that it’s up to the EPA and lawmakers — not judges — to bring polluters into line.
In this case, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued a bunch of oil companies for contributing to climate change, raising sea levels and damaging their waterfronts. Because federal courts had previously said they wouldn’t regulate polluters, the cities were trying to move their lawsuit into the California court. If federal court wouldn’t punish polluters, the lawyers figured, maybe state court would.
Alsup denied the cities’ motion to move to state court. But instead of bowing to precedent and punting responsibility over to the EPA, he’s letting the lawsuit go to trial — in federal court.
“[The oil companies] got what they wanted; but they may be sorry they did,” said Ken Adams, lawyer for the Center for Climate Integrity, in a statement.
Of course, after opening this door, the courts could very well slam it shut again. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2011 that it’s the job of Congress and regulators, not the court, to police emissions. But that decision concerned an American electric utility. Alsup said this case was different because the cities are suing international corporations.
Source –
In a ruling this week, Judge William Alsup said that plaintiffs can sue greenhouse-gas emitters in federal court. That’s a big reversal. So far, the courts have held that it’s up to the EPA and lawmakers — not judges — to bring polluters into line.
In this case, the cities of Oakland and San Francisco sued a bunch of oil companies for contributing to climate change, raising sea levels and damaging their waterfronts. Because federal courts had previously said they wouldn’t regulate polluters, the cities were trying to move their lawsuit into the California court. If federal court wouldn’t punish polluters, the lawyers figured, maybe state court would.
Alsup denied the cities’ motion to move to state court. But instead of bowing to precedent and punting responsibility over to the EPA, he’s letting the lawsuit go to trial — in federal court.
“[The oil companies] got what they wanted; but they may be sorry they did,” said Ken Adams, lawyer for the Center for Climate Integrity, in a statement.
Of course, after opening this door, the courts could very well slam it shut again. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 2011 that it’s the job of Congress and regulators, not the court, to police emissions. But that decision concerned an American electric utility. Alsup said this case was different because the cities are suing international corporations.
Original post:
After a three-decade fight, the Chesapeake Bay is finally flourishing again.
Which, by the way, is melting.
“This discovery is a game-changer,” said Paul Schuster, lead author of a new study that quantified the total mercury in the Arctic’s frozen permafrost.
And it’s a lot of mercury! To be precise, 793 gigagrams — more than 15 million gallons — of the stuff is currently locked up in frozen northern soils. That’s by far the biggest reservoir of mercury on the planet — almost twice the amount held by the rest of the world’s earth, oceans, and atmosphere combined.
This wouldn’t be a problem if the permafrost stayed, well, permanently frosty. But, as previous research has outlined, it’s not.
Mercury is a toxin that can cause birth defects and neurological damage in animals, including humans. And mercury levels accumulate as you go up the food chain, which is why king-of-the-jungle species like tuna and whale can be unsafe to eat in large quantities.
As thawing permafrost releases more mercury into the atmosphere and oceans, the implications for human health are troubling. Locally, many northern communities rely on subsistence hunting and fishing, two sources of possible mercury contamination. Globally, the toxin could travel great distances and collect in distant ecosystems.
As if we didn’t already have enough reasons to want permafrost to stay frozen.
Source –
Senators finally agreed on a deal to fund disaster relief. Is it too little, too late?
Libros
