Producing artificial snow used to be a desperate move taken by ski areas within striking distance of surfing beaches. Now, the practice is commonplace, even high in the Rocky Mountains and the Alps.
As a headline in Powder Magazine read last year, “Like It or Not, Snowmaking Is the Future.”
Utah’s Alta ski area has doubled its snowmaking capacity in the last decade. To make sure all those big machines and water pipes don’t detract too much from the scenery, they’re painted to blend in with the background, according to a dispatch from Wired. At Snowbird, also in Utah, each snow gun has its own weather station, allowing the machines to start, stop, and adjust water flow all on their own.
California’s Squaw Valley spent $10 million on machines that automatically change their water pressure and amount several times a second. Heavenly Ski Resort, at Lake Tahoe, can cover 3,500 acres with fake snow.
All these machines run on electricity, which comes from the still-mostly-fossil-fueled grid. That means making fake snow increases the rate of The Great Melt, which in turn creates demand for … more snow machines. There’s a self-perpetuating cycle of job security for these snow-bots: Is this the way Skynet becomes self-aware?
Originally from:
Teens are marching for justice around the world. Next up: Climate change.
We became eco-conscious greenies a little while after transitioning to a minimalist lifestyle. With retail therapy out the window, recycling, composting and shopping more mindfully (i.e. not for fun) were the next obvious step.
Even without a car, our new way of living wasn?t that much of a challenge. We did have our own apartment though, which made things a whole lot easier. Things got tricky when we made the move to full-time house-sitting.
Suddenly we had to figure out what to do with our kitchen waste, where to drop off our recycling, how to avoid additional packaging, etc. It hasn?t always been easy, but it?s shown us that living lightly is always an option.
Whether you live a nomadic lifestyle like we do, or simply want to travel more sustainably, there are plenty of ways you can go about reducing your carbon footprint while on the road.
Carrying your own eating utensils sounds pretty lame, right? Surely there must be a more epic way to earn your eco-warrior cape. Say, making a movie about global warming or starting your own environmental foundation.
Those things are awesome, but when you consider how long it takes trash to decompose you?ll realize that the simple act of carrying your own water bottle or coffee cup is heroic. Stop using plastic straws and you?re looking at Chuck Norris superpowers.
When you add up the number of meals and drinks you enjoy out, using your own travel utensils can have a huge impact on the environment. At a minimum, you should carry your own water bottle, reusable coffee cup and eco-friendly cutlery set.
A couple of snack and food containers?won’t go amiss either, as you can use them when you order take-out or to store leftovers in when you dine out. Finally, having a couple of reusable straws on hand is always a good idea.
If you have a vehicle it isn?t nearly as difficult as you might think to save your kitchen waste and recycling. Let?s start with recycling, because that?s the easiest. We simply store all our recycling in a reusable shopping bag and empty it out whenever it gets full.
Nowadays, a lot of shopping malls have recycling bins where you can offload glass, paper and plastic. Sometimes you?ll get lucky and find a depot that accepts bags of unsorted recycling. Winning. A quick search in Google will help you pinpoint your nearest available drop-off point.
For kitchen waste all you need is a small bucket and some food waste recycling bran to speed up decomposition and more importantly, eliminate unpleasant odors. When the bucket is full you just need to find somewhere to offload it.
A lot of places have community gardens that will be all too happy to take your kitchen waste. You could also check with city services to see if they have something in place. The city of Nanaimo, Canada, for example, collects residents? kitchen waste once a week.
If you can?t find anything, another option is to look on community notice boards, ask at the local farmer?s market or do a search on Gumtree or Craigslist. There?s almost always an eco-conscious hippie out there who?d be happy to help.
We recently decided to hire a car for a few months so that we?d be able to take advantage of house-sitting opportunities further afield, where public transport isn?t as user-friendly (or safe).
It?s definitely not something we plan to do long-term (gas and parking are way too expensive), but for now it serves us to have our own transport. We?re offsetting the increase in carbon emissions by donating trees to Greenpop.
If your plan is to actually live on the road, then there are some things you need to consider before embarking on your nomadic lifestyle. For example, will you opt for a travel trailer, RV or van?
They each come with their own set of eco-conscious pros and cons, so you’ll need to give that some thought. And once you?ve acquired your new home, there?s also the business of ?greening? it to make it more sustainable.
But what if your travels take you abroad? Is it even possible to fly sustainably? According to Lauren Singer from Trash is for Tossers, there are plenty of steps you can take to travel lightly.
She says opting to fly direct as far as possible, choosing a?fuel-efficient?airline and taking advantage of carbon offset programs are some of the things you can do to minimize the impact of your wanderlust.
At the end of the day, it doesn?t really matter whether you?re at home, on the road or in the tent in the middle of nowhere. If you strive to live as lightly as possible, you?ll make a difference.
Photo Credit: Thinkstock
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
More here:
How to Live Sustainably When You’re an Eco-Conscious Nomad (Or Travel a Lot)
There has been a lot of bad news lately about Lake Winnipeg. Algae blooms occur regularly, and zebra mussels are settling into their new home. Lake Winnipeg was named the world?s most threatened lake in 2013 by Global Nature Fund, and some scientists have even declared that Lake Winnipeg is a lost cause.
Despite the current state of Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba?s other large lakes, there is both reason and evidence for hope. The current issues we are facing have occurred in other regions of Canada, including Ontario?s Great Lakes, and Manitoba?s large lakes have avoided problems, such as industrial pollution, that have degraded other large lakes. There are immense benefits that these lakes continue to provide to people, and they remain places of spectacular nature. Most importantly, there is still an opportunity to protect and restore the health of Lake Winnipeg.
Five ways to save a lake (Infographic by NCC)
Yes, zebra mussels are in Lake Winnipeg. And so are other aquatic invasive species, including common carp, rainbow smelt, white bass and Asian tapeworm. But these are still a small fraction of the species in the lake, which remains dominated by native species.
Management actions are limited once invasive species become established. The ideal scenario is to prevent these species from entering the lake and the watershed, and monitor our lands and waters so they can be detected early and eradicated. This is the opportunity we still have in Lake Winnipeg, in particular with quagga mussels and European common reed (phragmites).
Invasive species often spread rapidly because there are no natural predators to control them. In the Great Lakes, many native fishes, particularly bottom feeders, eat zebra mussels. Many of these same fish species are also found in Lake Winnipeg, such as lake sturgeon, freshwater drum and lake whitefish. The recent shift in the lake whitefish range to the southern basin of Lake Winnipeg may even be a response to the rapidly growing number of zebra mussels. Keeping populations of these fishes healthy may be our best defense in keeping zebra mussel populations in check.
Lake Winnipeg and Manitoba?s other large lakes still have vast stretches of natural shorelines, such as coastal wetlands and sand beaches. These shorelines include areas designated as Important Bird Areas, such as Netley-Libau Marsh. In addition to providing important habitat for birds, and spawning and nursery habitat for fishes, shoreline vegetation plays a critical role in filtering lake waters. Lake Winnipeg still has many important coastal habitats. Protecting and restoring them is critical to the health of the lake. In urban and rural areas, including parks and waterfront communities, there are many opportunities to restore shorelines with native vegetation while maintaining access to the waterfront.
This is a tough one. For over 100 years, we have been trying to get water off the land as quickly as possible. In some watersheds that are dominated by urban areas and farms, this can mean that the sponge that nature?s wetlands, grasslands and forests once provided to store and filter water has been replaced with hardened surfaces and drains. When water flows quickly from land to lake, it often carries nutrients. These nutrients, and in particular phosphorus, provide fertilizer for algae.
There are many examples of how this can be solved. Septic systems can be inspected and maintained to ensure that no nutrients are seeping into the lake. Protecting natural habitats that help hold water on the land, such as the Nature Conservancy of Canada?s work in the Interlake Region, is also part of the solution.
Despite zebra mussels and algae, Lake Winnipeg remains an extraordinary place. From one of the world?s most productive freshwater fisheries, to white pelicans, to some of Canada?s largest freshwater wetlands, Lake Winnipeg is a unique and special ecosystem. We need to celebrate this lake and focus on the solutions, not the problems. As stewards of one of the planet?s greatest freshwater resources, we have the opportunity to demonstrate success to the rest of the world. These waters are a foundation of Manitoba and support our economy, lifestyle and identity. It is not a lost cause because options remain to protect and restore Lake Winnipeg.
This article was written by Dan Kraus and originally appeared in The Cottager magazine and is reposted with permission.
Post photo: Lake Winnipeg (Photo by Christine Chilton/NCC staff)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Original link:
The first-ever courtroom tutorial of climate science this week went about as you’d expect. The scientists representing Oakland and San Francisco had Powerpoint problems, and the oil industry’s lawyer cherry-picked his facts.
For all their differences, both sides drew from a common source: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the gold-standard for mainstream climate science. Problem is, the last IPCC report came out way back in 2013. As it turns out, we’ve learned a lot about our climate since then, and most of that new information paints an increasingly urgent picture of the need to slash fossil-fuel emissions as soon as possible.
It’s convenient that Chevron’s attorney relied on that aging five-year-old report. The next IPCC report isn’t planned for public release until the fall of 2019. Gathering consensus takes time, and the result is that IPCC reports are out of date before they’re published and necessarily conservative.
The climate models used in these reports grow old in a hurry. Since the 1970s, they’ve routinely underestimated the rate of global warming. Some of the most recent comprehensive assessments of climate science, including last year’s congressionally-mandated, White House-approved, Climate Science Special Report, include scary new sections on “climate surprises” like simultaneous droughts and hurricanes, that have wide-reaching consequences. The scientists representing the two cities knew this, and didn’t limit their talking points to the IPCC.
“Positive feedbacks (self-reinforcing cycles) within the climate system have the potential to accelerate human-induced climate change,” says a section from that Climate Science Special report, “and even shift the Earth’s climate system, in part or in whole, into new states that are very different from those experienced in the recent past.” None of this was included in the last IPCC report.
Actually, a helluva lot has changed in our understanding of the Earth’s climate system since the 2013 IPCC report. Here are some of the highlights:
The climate system is moving much more quickly than we thought, and human action to curb climate change is moving much too slowly. Nasty surprises are increasingly possible, and hopeful surprises are more necessary than ever. But there’s some solace to take from this week’s events. The hearing this week is just one of the many courtrooms in which Big Oil has been forced to defend itself. Challenging polluters directly through the courts might result in one of those hopeful surprises people weren’t betting on five years ago.
Originally from:
Climate science’s official text is outdated. Here’s what it’s missing.
On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments about a California law that tries to clarify the facts that women receive about their reproductive rights. The accuracy of that information becomes increasingly important as environmental disasters — which are growing more, uh, disastrous — endanger women more than men. Women can be better prepared by having full control of their reproductive decisions.
Crisis pregnancy centers are organizations, often masquerading as medical clinics, that attempt to dissuade women from seeking abortions. California’s Reproductive FACT Act, passed in 2016, requires reproductive health clinics and CPCs to post notices advising their clients that the state provides free or low-cost family planning, prenatal care, and abortion; and that CPCs publicize that they are not licensed to practice medicine.
Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal organization representing the centers suing the state of California, claims that the requirements of the Reproductive FACT Act are unconstitutional because they require CPCs to “promote messages that violate their convictions,” Bloomberg reports. The state of California argues that information provided by medical professionals is publicly regulated, and that women who depend on public medical care and are unaware of their options should not be provided with confusing information.
Last February, a Gizmodo-Damn Joan investigation found that women seeking abortion clinics on Google — because, let’s be real, that’s how a lot of us find medical care — could be easily led to CPCs instead, as Google Maps does not distinguish them from real medical clinics.
We’ll be watching this case.
Source:
4 surprising facts about the judge behind California’s climate change trial.
Today’s courtroom drama unfolding in San Francisco will come in the form of a “tutorial” on climate science, not a debate.
Federal Judge William Alsup, a quirky, inquisitive man who previously taught himself the Java programming language for a 2012 lawsuit involving Oracle and Google, will be the only one asking questions. There will be no direct debate between lawyers representing the people of the State of California and those for the defendant oil companies.
In a court document, Judge Alsup narrowed his focus to eight specific questions regarding climate science (in bold below). In the two weeks since the questions were posted, climate scientists have attempted to crowdsource the best, most succinct answers. (I’ve further summed them up in just a few words, in parenthesis.):
The crowd-sourcing effort (with references) was coordinated by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who in an email to Grist said he doesn’t actually expect there to be much disagreement over the science in today’s courtroom tutorial. Chevron, one of the defendants, is not planning to deny evidence at all in its explanations. In fact will refer Judge Alsup to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the gold standard of mainstream climate science.
“Despite the attempted interventions from the fringe,” Schmidt wrote, “ I doubt that the defendants or plaintiffs will be making much hay with the science.”
Even if disagreement is unlikely, Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist from Texas A&M University — who penned a Twitter thread of answers to Alsup’s questions — hailed the uniqueness of today’s court activities.
“Obviously, I wish these issues were not still being debated in court, since they’re not being debated in the scientific community, but I also appreciate the deliberate approach the judge seems to be taking,” he wrote to Grist.
No matter what the oil industry lawyers argue today, these facts are well established: Human activities are by far the dominant cause of modern climate change, and only a sharp reduction in our emissions — which means our use of oil — will help solve the problem.
Continued here:
A federal judge has climate science questions. Here are the answers.
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics
Genre: Physics
Price: $19.99
Publish Date: March 20, 2018
Publisher: Basic Books
Seller: Hachette Digital, Inc.
The untold story of the heretical thinkers who dared to question the nature of our quantum universe Every physicist agrees quantum mechanics is among humanity's finest scientific achievements. But ask what it means, and the result will be a brawl. For a century, most physicists have followed Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and dismissed questions about the reality underlying quantum physics as meaningless. A mishmash of solipsism and poor reasoning, Copenhagen endured, as Bohr's students vigorously protected his legacy, and the physics community favored practical experiments over philosophical arguments. As a result, questioning the status quo long meant professional ruin. And yet, from the 1920s to today, physicists like John Bell, David Bohm, and Hugh Everett persisted in seeking the true meaning of quantum mechanics. What Is Real? is the gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.
View post –
Imagine you are Brock Long, the man President Trump appointed to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency. You’ve got an interesting challenge on your hands: hammering out FEMA’s long-term strategy while avoiding all mention of “climate change” — an unwritten rule among your colleagues.
The problem is that last year’s pileup of hurricanes, wildfires, and floods completely overwhelmed your agency. And scientists say that these climate change disasters will only get worse. OK — but they’re scientists. Whatever! This is the Trump era.
Under Obama, FEMA’s strategic plan plainly stated that the climate is changing. In the Trump era, that 37-page plan is peppered with the obliquest references to climate change you could dream up: “Rising natural hazard risk. The emerging challenges of 21st century disasters. The changing nature of the risks we face.”
Under the Trump administration, which actively promotes coal and oil while repealing climate policies, “climate change” has systematically disappeared from government websites, social media accounts, and science research, resulting in a culture of censorship.
If you, like a typical Trump administration employee, can’t bring yourself to mention the-change-that-must-not-be-named, try these alternative phrases instead.
FEMA’s new strategy seizes on a delightfully climate-free phrase that appeared just once in the Obama plan. “Pre-disaster mitigation” is employed a full 10 times.
“As the number of people that move to coastal areas increases, and natural and manmade hazards become increasingly complex and difficult to predict, the need for forward leaning action is greater than ever before,” the report reads. “Although the Nation must do more to assess and quantify these increasing risks, we do know that pre-disaster mitigation works.”
It’s like preparing for more extreme weather and rising seas, no climate change involved!
Could FEMA carry out climate policies without acknowledging climate change? It seems unlikely. But then again, the Trump administration has done it before.
Last August, Trump revoked an Obama-era climate policy that made federal building standards stricter in flood-prone places. But after hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria struck, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development brought back a nearly identical rule for states receiving relief.
“All of this is being done without mentioning the words ‘climate change,’ but clearly these are the same types of actions,” Rob Moore, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg at the time.
So maybe there’s more hope for FEMA than you’d think. There’s money behind “pre-disaster mitigation,” after all: an entire FEMA grant program is devoted to it.
Last August, officials instructed staff at the U.S Department of Agriculture to avoid using “climate change” in their scientific work, suggesting “weather extremes” as a replacement.
The message projected far beyond the USDA. An NPR report found that National Science Foundation scientists, hoping to protect their research from funding cuts, had wiped climate change from summaries of their research grants. While climate change mentions were down 40 percent last year, references to “extreme weather” were on the rise.
“Scientists I know are increasingly using terms like ‘global change’, ‘environmental change’, and ‘extreme weather’, rather than explicitly saying ‘climate change,’” Jonathan Thompson, a senior ecologist at Harvard Forest, told NPR.
The Trump administration has made sweeping changes to federal government websites, systematically removing mentions of climate change. The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI), a group tracking these changes, found many instances where agencies shifted from straightforward language to wishy-washy terminology.
Across the Federal Highway Administration site, page banners that once read “Climate Change,” “Climate Adaptation,” and “Climate Mitigation” are now simply “Sustainability.” The “Sustainable Transport and Climate Change Team” became the “Sustainable Transportation and Resilience Team.”
Justin Schell, an EDGI archivist at the library of the University of Michigan, says that Trump officials may find these vague terms more palatable. “Sustainability and resilience can mean lots and lots of things,” he told Grist. “It could be that this gives them a little more flexibility to do the work that they’re trying to do” — which ostensibly has little to do climate change. Yet the words still come across as having a “green” vibe.
The fact that Trump administration officials are adopting words like “sustainability” and “resilience” could be a worrisome sign that those words aren’t as useful as environmentalists thought.
Excerpt from –
A guide to talking about climate change like a Trump official
Libros
