Tag Archives: academy

Entomologists: “Stop feeding corn syrup to honeybees.” Duh.

Entomologists: “Stop feeding corn syrup to honeybees.” Duh.

Shutterstock

It’s time to share more honey with the honeybees that make it.

If you want to a kill a honeybee hive’s buzz, take all its honey away and feed the bees a steady diet of high-fructose corn syrup.

Believe it or not, apiarists have been doing just that since the 1970s — feeding HFCS to their colonies as a replacement source of nourishment for the honey that gets taken away from them to be sold.

And believe it or not, HFCS, which is bad for humans, is also bad for honeybees. It’s especially bad for those that are exposed to pesticides, which these days is a high proportion of them.

It’s not that HFCS contributes to honeybee diabetes, nor does it result in honeybee obesity. But it weakens their defenses. And right now, the bees need all the defenses they can get in order to survive.

When honeybees collect nectar from flowers, they also gather pollen and a substance called propolis, which they use to make waxy honeycombs. The pollen and propolis are loaded with three types of compounds that University of Illinois entomologists discovered can help the bees detoxify their cells and protect themselves from pesticides and microbes.

“The widespread apicultural use of honey substitutes, including high-fructose corn syrup, may thus compromise the ability of honey bees to cope with pesticides and pathogens and contribute to colony losses,” the scientists wrote in a paper reporting their findings in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

From Phys.org:

The researchers aren’t suggesting that high-fructose corn syrup is itself toxic to bees, instead, they say their findings indicate that by eating the replacement food instead of honey, the bees are not being exposed to other chemicals that help the bees fight off toxins, such as those found in pesticides.

Cutting the crappy sweeteners from honeybees’ diets and allowing them to eat a bit more of their own honey won’t necessarily save them in a world doused in pesticides. But it might give bees back some of their natural defenses against the poisons they encounter every day.

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

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More:

Entomologists: “Stop feeding corn syrup to honeybees.” Duh.

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Entomologists: “Stop feeding corn syrup to honeybees.” Duh.

Extreme Weather in a Warming World, and the American Mind

A new survey shows how extreme weather influences public attitudes on global warming. More:   Extreme Weather in a Warming World, and the American Mind Related ArticlesObserved Earth: A New View of the SkyEnergy Agreement Hidden by Climate DisputesObama Hails 150th Year of Academy of Sciences

More:  

Extreme Weather in a Warming World, and the American Mind

Posted in alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Extreme Weather in a Warming World, and the American Mind

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

green4us

Want to sell a Republican a greener light bulb? Don’t tell them it’s green. Shutterstock Back in 2011, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) declared war on energy-efficient light bulbs, calling “sustainability” the gateway into a dystopic, Big Brother-patrolled liberal hellscape. When the lights went off during Beyoncé’s halftime set at the last Superbowl, conservative commentators from the Drudge Report to Michelle Malkin pointed blame (erroneously) at new power-saving measures at New Orleans’ Superdome. And one recent study found that giving Republican households feedback on their power use actually encourages them to use more energy. Why do conservatives, who should have a natural inclination toward conservation, have a beef with energy efficiency? It could be tied to the political polarization of the climate change debate. A study out today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, and found that promoting energy-efficient products and services on the basis of their environmental benefits actually turned conservatives off from picking them. The researchers first quizzed participants on how much they value various benefits of energy efficiency, including reducing carbon emissions, reducing foreign oil dependence, and reducing how much consumers pay for energy; cutting emissions appealed to conservatives the least. The study then presented participants with a real-world choice: With a fixed amount of money in their wallet, respondents had to “buy” either an old-school light bulb or an efficient compact florescent bulb (CFL), the same kind Bachmann railed against. Both bulbs were labeled with basic hard data on their energy use, but without a translation of that into climate pros and cons. When the bulbs cost the same, and even when the CFL cost more, conservatives and liberals were equally likely to buy the efficient bulb. But slap a message on the CFL’s packaging that says “Protect the Environment,” and “we saw a significant drop-off in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option,” said study author Dena Gromet, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. The chart below, from the report, shows how much liberals and conservatives value each argument for efficiency: While liberals (gray) valued all three equally, conservatives (white), were significantly less moved by and most at odds with liberals over the carbon-saving argument. Courtesy Gromet Gromet said she never expected the green message to motivate conservatives, but was surprised to find that it could in fact repel them from making a purchase even while they found other aspects, like saving cash on their power bills, attractive. The reason, she thinks, is that given the political polarization of the climate change debate, environmental activism is so frowned upon by those the right that they’ll do anything to keep themselves distanced from it. “When we’re given an option where the choice is made to represent a value that we don’t identify with or that our ideological group doesn’t value,” she said, “this can turn the purchase into something undesirable. By making [the environment] part of the choice, even though they might see the economic benefit, they no longer want to put their money toward that option.” This graph, lifted from the report (on the x-axis, -1 is liberal and 1 is conservative), shows the damage the wrong messaging can do: With no messaging, roughly 60 percent of all participants picked the CFL; a pro-environment message boosted support in liberals but cut it sharply in conservatives: Courtesy Gromet That gap could represent real lost opportunities in the private sector: the EPA’s Energy Star label, for example, perhaps the most prominent label for energy-efficient products, puts greenhouse gas savings front and center in its packaging, and proudly boasts that products with the label helps Americans “protect our climate.” This isn’t just a problem for businesses trying to push energy-efficient products, but also for environmentalists and policymakers pushing to write efficiency or other climate-friendly policies into law, said Jessica Goodheart, director of RePower LA, which advocates for energy-saving practices in the Los Angeles power utility. Goodheart said while tackling climate change is driving force behind her lobbying, she more often finds herself talking about jobs and the economy, especially when addressing small business owners. “It’s always important to speak to people where they are, and with energy efficiency there are so many positive messages you can use,” she said. And there’s no shortage of opportunities to roll those messages out: Last week, Energy Department researchers found that rules requiring utilities to use renewable energy were under attack in over half the states they exist in; such laws might have better luck fending off Bachmann-esque fusillades if they re-focus their rhetoric around their cost-savings, energy independence, or other benefits, Gromet’s research suggests, especially in conservative states. That doesn’t necessarily mean green advocates need to somehow cover up the environmental benefits of a policy or product: A study from Stanford psychologists released last December found that re-framing environmental messaging in terms of preserving the “purity” of the natural world resonated morally with conservatives. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all message that will appeal equally,” Gromet said. “It’s important to know the market you’re appealing to; there are some messages you may want to avoid.”

Taken from – 

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Related Posts

Obama Campaign Launches Plan to Shame Climate Sceptics in Congress
How Thatcher Made the Conservative Case for Climate Action
Survey Finds Most Republicans Seek Action on Climate Change
CHARTS: ‘Messy’ US Climate Policy is Kinda Working
Keystone XL: The Science, Stakes, and Strategy Behind the Fight Over the Tar Sands Pipeline
Zemanta

Share this:

Original article: 

Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Posted in ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Do Conservatives Like to Waste Energy?

Climate changes for wine regions could mean hangovers for wildlife

Climate changes for wine regions could mean hangovers for wildlife

Wine grapes are about as sensitive as your head the morning after you’ve tied one on with a bottle of Bordeaux: They need just the right climate to thrive. And that climate, of course, is changing.

A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicts the rapid decline of wine-growing regions from California to Australia — quite the headache for the $290 billion a year global wine industry.

The Guardian reports:

Researchers predict a two-thirds fall in production in the world’s premier wine regions because of climate change. …

The scientists used 17 different climate models to gauge the effects on nine major wine-producing areas. They used two different climate futures for 2050, one assuming a worst-case scenario with a 4.7C (8.5F) warming, the other a 2.5C increase.

Both forecast a radical re-ordering of the wine world. The most drastic decline was expected in Europe, where the scientists found a 85% decrease in production in Bordeaux, Rhone and Tuscany.

The future was also bleak for wine growing areas of Australia, with a 74% drop, and California, with a 70% fall

Wine growers in the Cape area of South Africa would also be hit hard, with a 55% decline. Chile’s wine producers would expect losses of about 40%, the study found.

But it’s not like we’re gonna give up the stuff, of course. Winegrowers are expected to turn to heavier irrigation to keep their vineyards producing for now. And ultimately some will start looking to move to higher, cooler ground — with potentially grave impacts for the animals and plants that already live there.

“One of the adaptation strategies for grape growers will be to move into areas that have a suitable climate,” Rebecca Shaw, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and an author of the paper, told The New York Times. “This adaptation has the potential to threaten the survival of wildlife.”

A warmer world could open up grape-friendly growing regions right in the middle of critical wildlife areas: the Yellowstone-to-Yukon migratory corridor near the U.S.-Canada border, and endangered giant panda habitat in China. Pandas especially have good reason these days for wanting to drink their problems away, but let’s not push the bottle on them, folks.

Wine lovers, drink up while you’re still able, but you might also want to develop a taste for beer sold in reusable growlers.

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

Twitter

.

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

,

Climate & Energy

,

Food

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read this article:  

Climate changes for wine regions could mean hangovers for wildlife

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate changes for wine regions could mean hangovers for wildlife

American kids still pretty lead-poisoned

American kids still pretty lead-poisoned

stevendepolo

Lead-free gasoline: It’s pretty great, as far as gasoline-without-extra-toxins goes. But even though we’ve made great strides in reducing lead pollution over the last few decades, America’s still full of the stuff.

More than half a million American children under 5, or 1 in 38 young kids, have low-grade lead poisoning, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The surveys from 2007 to 2010 showed an 8.6 percent decrease in childhood lead poisoning compared to 1999-2002.

Until last year, the CDC only tracked people with 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, considered the threshold for lead poisoning by the CDC, World Heath Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But five micrograms per deciliter is considered enough to potentially cause damage.

Those approximately 535,000 kids aren’t really a representative sample of American youth, though.

“Persistent differences between the mean [blood lead levels] of different racial/ethnic and income groups can be traced to differences in housing quality, environmental conditions, nutrition, and other factors,” the CDC said in a statement. In other words: This is way worse for poor kids of color who live in our urban sacrifice zones.

From the Associated Press:

Often, children who get lead poisoning live in old homes that are dilapidated or under renovation. They pick up paint chips or dust and put it in their mouth. Children have also picked up lead poisoning from soil contaminated by old leaded gasoline, from dust tracked in from industrial worksites, from tainted drinking water, and other sources.

Some have linked a reduction in environmental lead exposure to a reduction in violent crime nationwide over the last few decades. Regardless, I think we can all agree that we’d prefer lead-free kids. The CDC suggests that children can counteract high blood lead levels by increasing their iron and calcium intake. But wouldn’t a strong lead abatement effort  be even more effective?

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

Twitter

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read original article: 

American kids still pretty lead-poisoned

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on American kids still pretty lead-poisoned

Lisa Jackson blasts D.C. on her way out, while Chamber of Commerce shrugs and lobbies

Lisa Jackson blasts D.C. on her way out, while Chamber of Commerce shrugs and lobbies

Presented for your consideration, two views of how the United States should develop and evolve its energy policy.

In an interview with USA Today (yesterday), outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson railed against obstructive Republican members of the House, and trumpeted the agency’s work on fighting climate change during her tenure.

Climate change is “a simple scientific statement,” said Jackson, who was in San Francisco on Tuesday to tour the city’s new energy-saving Public Utilities Commission building. She said the EPA’s so-called “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases pose a public threat, upheld despite court challenges, has enabled the agency to use the Clean Air Act to start reducing their emissions and “help businesses to look forward to a different future.” …

There’s still a way to go, she acknowledged. She said the nation has to get to the point of accepting scientific evidence. She cited the EPA’s recent rules that set stricter standards for fine particle or soot pollution, which were based on EPA research — done at the request of the National Academy of Sciences — showing that soot is a cause of premature death. “And yet you have people argue about whether soot standards are beneficial,” she said.

Another challenge, she said, is Congress. Jackson repeatedly tussled with congressional Republicans and the fossil-fuel industry over anti-pollution regulations. “One of the questions everyone is asking themselves is whether the U.S. House of Representatives is actually going to reflect the will of the people on a lot of these issues, and the will of the people is awfully clear.” But people in Washington continue to argue about them “and that’s not good for our country,” she said.

Speaking of people in Washington, this morning the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donohue, shared his bold vision for the future of America. To summarize that vision: Imagine if Ward Cleaver had been an oil industry executive. From his remarks:

We have more oil, gas, and coal than any other country and we are now the largest single natural gas producer in the world. We are now in a position to export liquefied natural gas and coal, and thus reducing our trade deficit and bringing billions of dollars into the United States. The abundance of affordable natural gas is attracting good manufacturing jobs back to America, particularly in the chemical and steel industries.

All of this adds up to a lot of jobs, growth, improved national security, and more revenues for government. …

To achieve these great benefits, we need to safely open up new land to exploration. We’ve foolishly locked away too much of our resources on land and off our coasts.

We need a predictable and fair regulatory environment. The federal government shouldn’t pick the winners and losers or subject energy projects to endless and duplicative reviews. Such roadblocks have stymied vital projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline, which must be built. We should stop EPA’s senseless and ideologically driven battle to ban the production and use of coal.

One of these people is staying in Washington to advocate his agenda. One of them, beaten down by the process, is leaving.

Source

State of American Business, Remarks by Thomas J. Donohue President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce
EPA head calls climate-change shift a proud milestone, USA Today

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from: 

Lisa Jackson blasts D.C. on her way out, while Chamber of Commerce shrugs and lobbies

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lisa Jackson blasts D.C. on her way out, while Chamber of Commerce shrugs and lobbies

Leaked, useless report suggests fracking is fine for New Yorkers

Leaked, useless report suggests fracking is fine for New Yorkers

The New York Times got its ink-stained hands on a report from the New York Health Department assessing the risks associated with fracking, the primary issue at play as the state considers whether or not to lift a ban on the practice. While the report suggests that fracking doesn’t pose risks, there are at least two gigantic caveats. From the Times:

The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times from an expert who did not believe it should be kept secret. …

The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others, and concludes that fracking can be done safely. It delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.” …

Emily DeSantis, a spokeswoman for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, said the analysis obtained by The Times was out of date. “The document you have is merely a summary, is nearly a year old, and there will be substantial changes to that version,” she said.

Can you spot the caveats? Yes, the report is an aggregation of existing research, not new reporting on any health effects. And, yes, it’s outdated.

Lazzarello

Last November, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed out a deadline for making a final decision so that the state could do more research on fracking’s health effects. The release of this report makes clear why that was a natural next step: With only a cobbled-together set of data on how the practice could affect New Yorkers, it would be hard for Cuomo to make a strong case for lifting a ban. An upstate political blog spoke with a Sierra Club representative following release of the report.

“The position that the impacts of fracking can be regulated to ‘below levels of significant health concern’ is pure fantasy and it is understandable why (Gov. Andrew Cuomo) did not press forward with these baseless conclusions last year,” said Roger Downs, conservation director of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter.

The Times didn’t include the report in its coverage, but the site Journalist’s Resource has a good overview of existing research and reporting on the topic. Among the reports included there is one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which looks specifically at shale fracking in New York and Pennsylvania.

In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shalegas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L −1 (n ¼ 26), a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L −1 (P < 0.05; n ¼ 34).

Emphasis added, to highlight the health risk. The area in New York considered in that research lies on the state’s southern border — the area most likely to see approval of the fracking process.

New York isn’t alone in its skepticism. Large cities across the country are beginning to ban the practice within city limits.

Some cities, even those in the heart of oil and gas country have moved to ban fracking within their limits. Tulsa, Oklahoma, (once the self-proclaimed oil capital of the world) has completely banned fracking within the city limits. Planning for the first ever natural gas well in the city of Dallas was blocked last week, and the town of Longmont, near Denver, is currently battling attempts to overturn its own fracking ban.

Meaning that even if Cuomo feels comfortable in lifting the state’s ban once a more thorough health assessment has been completed, the odds that we see fracking wells in Central Park remain pretty slim.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original link: 

Leaked, useless report suggests fracking is fine for New Yorkers

Posted in GE, Northeastern, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Leaked, useless report suggests fracking is fine for New Yorkers

King tides give California coast a taste of warmer, wetter future

King tides give California coast a taste of warmer, wetter future

THE KING TIDES ARE COMING. Through the end of the week, California will be experiencing its highest tides of the year, the “king” kind, that come around each winter. It may be galactic gravity that’s pulling the water closer, but it looks a lot like climate change! The tides will be as high as +10.1 feet in some places.

SantaBarbaraOceanGirl

From The San Jose Mercury News:

“Flooding would be a concern if we had a storm system coming through,” said Matt Mehle, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Monterey. Instead, the rising water will offer a teachable moment, scientists say. Already, the ocean off California has risen 8 inches in the past 100 years. As the earth warms, polar ice melts, and the warmer ocean water expands, increasing sea level. That rate of sea level rise is accelerating. A National Academy of Sciences report in July found that, relative to sea levels in 2000, the California coast south of Cape Mendocino is projected to experience sea level rise of 1.5 inches to 11.8 inches by 2030, and 4.7 inches to 24 inches by 2050, and 16.5 inches to 65 inches by 2100.

Just because the Golden State won’t have a Sandy-sized catastrophe doesn’t mean there can’t still be a lesson in all this. The Mercury News calls this “a giant science project” but I call it “scaring people into better behavior.” The California King Tides Initiative is collecting citizens’ photos of the tides in an effort to educate the public about what higher sea levels might actually look like.

These photographs help us visualize the impact of rising waters on the California coast. Our shores are constantly being altered by human and natural processes and projections indicate that sea level rise will exacerbate these changes. The images offer a living record of the changes to our coasts and shorelines and a glimpse of what our daily tides may look like in the future as a result of sea level rise. Photos taken during king tide events document impacts to private property, public infrastructure, and wildlife habitat across the state.

For locals still set on taking a long walk on the beach, the king tides also bring extremely low tides in midday, but the California Coastal Commission has a friendly suggestion for the rest of us.

Just a thought … California’s next king tides will hit in 2013: Jan. 9-11 and Feb. 7-9.

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

Twitter

.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original article: 

King tides give California coast a taste of warmer, wetter future

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on King tides give California coast a taste of warmer, wetter future