Tag Archives: alo
Nothing is certain but death and (maybe?) carbon taxes
Continue at source:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change – Marc Morano
![]()
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
Originally posted here:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change – Marc Morano
Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why – Laurence Gonzales
![]()
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why
Genre: Science & Nature
Price: $9.99
Publish Date: January 10, 2017
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company
Seller: W. W. Norton
“Unique among survival books . . . stunning . . . enthralling. Deep Survival makes compelling, and chilling, reading.”—Denver Post Over a decade since its original publication, Laurence Gonzales’s bestselling Deep Survival has helped save lives from the deepest wildernesses, just as it has improved readers’ everyday lives. Its mix of adventure narrative, survival science, and practical advice has inspired everyone from business leaders to military officers, educators, and psychiatric professionals on how to take control of stress, learn to assess risk, and make better decisions under pressure. Now with a new introduction on how this book can help readers overcome any of life’s obstacles, Gonzales’s gripping narrative is set to motivate and enlighten a new generation of readers.
Originally posted here:
Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why – Laurence Gonzales
The Wasp That Brainwashed the Caterpillar – Matt Simon
![]()
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
The Wasp That Brainwashed the Caterpillar
Evolution’s Most Unbelievable Solutions to Life’s Biggest Problems
Genre: Life Sciences
Price: $1.99
Publish Date: October 25, 2016
Publisher: Penguin Publishing Group
Seller: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
“A bizarre collection of evolution tales . . . the weirder, the better.” — Entertainment Weekly A fascinating exploration of the awe-inspiring, unsettling ingenuity of evolution On a barren seafloor, the pearlfish swims into the safety of a sea cucumber’s anus. To find a meal, the female bolas spider releases pheromones that mimic a female moth, luring male moths into her sticky lasso web. The Glyptapanteles wasp injects a caterpillar with her young, which feed on the victim, erupt out of it, then mind-control the poor (and somehow still living) schmuck into protecting them from predators. These are among the curious critters of The Wasp That Brainwashed the Caterpillar , a jaunt through evolution’s most unbelievable, most ingenious solutions to the problems of everyday life, from trying to get laid to finding food. Join Wired science writer Matt Simon as he introduces you to the creatures that have it figured out, the ones that joust with their mustaches or choke sharks to death with snot, all in a wild struggle to survive and, of course, find true love. Winner of the American Library Association’s Alex Award
See original article:
Congressional Republicans got F’s on their environmental report cards
This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Congressional Republicans and Democrats have never been further apart on environmental issues. The top leadership in the GOP is comprised entirely of climate change deniers, while Democrats have aligned in opposition to President Trump’s agenda. But a report released today by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) calibrates the distance between the two parties with some hard numbers.
The group has been calculating the performance by members of Congress for nearly 50 years by evaluating how each member votes on environmental legislation. This year, the Republican-controlled Congress had plenty of opportunities to show where they stand. LCV counted a total of 35 House votes and 19 Senate votes to overturn climate regulations, open up drilling on public lands, undermine the Endangered Species Act, and confirm a slew of Trump-appointed judicial and cabinet nominations.
“We’ve seen the parties have gotten further and further apart,” says Tiernan Sittenfeld, LCV’s senior vice president for government affairs, “and more Democrats have recognized that good climate politics is good politics.”
All those votes resulted in single-digit failing scores for most Republicans. The Senate average of 1 percent is a historic low, while House Republicans pulled an average of 5 percent. Meanwhile Democrats in the House and Senate earned 94 percent and 93 percent, respectively.
Those are just party averages, and it’s worth noting just how many legislators are at the extremes, which tilts the scores: More than 100 Democrats, now leading the opposition to Trump’s deregulatory agenda, earned perfect scores, while the Republican average was dragged down by the 170 lawmakers across the two chambers who earned a zero.
But what about the Climate Solutions Caucus in the House, the growing bipartisan caucus whose 70 members (with 68 voting members) are equally divided between Republicans and Democrats? For some moderate conservatives and climate activists, the caucus represents the best hope in Congress for ever advancing climate legislation as long as Republicans hold power. One might expect the caucus Republicans to earn higher scores than their party overall, and technically they did score a bit better than their House peers. But their average 16 percent score is still a failing grade.
In fact, more than half of the Republicans on the caucus earned less than 10 percent (Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, who once proposed a bill to abolish the EPA, is among them with 6 percent). Representative Carlos Curbelo is co-chair of the caucus and represents the Miami area. He is generally considered a leader on climate change, but his score was 23 percent. One caveat is that many representatives from Florida missed a number of votes, due to the time they spent in their districts after Hurricane Irma — those missed votes may have affected their scores.
[The Climate Solutions Caucus’s] critics charge the caucus has expanded its size at the expense of its credibility, providing Republicans who have been actively hostile to government programs a low-stakes opportunity to “greenwash” their climate credentials without backing meaningful action — just in time for midterm elections. In fact, many members may be vulnerable in the 2018 cycle; 24 of the 35 Republican members’ districts will be competitive races, according to an analysis of The Cook Political Report. Republicans in these races could benefit from distancing themselves from Trump’s climate change denial.
The exception is Pennsylvania Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, who earned the highest of any Republican with 71 percent — a solid C-minus.
“It’s unfortunate that 71 percent is now such an outlier,” Sittenfeld notes, “because it used to be that a number of Republicans voted pro environment.”
Here’s LCV’s full report with a breakdown for individual members of Congress.
Link to original:
Congressional Republicans got F’s on their environmental report cards
Scott Pruitt plans to close an EPA office that studies how chemicals harm children.
Facing backlash from professors, Tennessee Technological University president Philip B. Oldham sent a letter to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt on Monday asking him to ignore the results of a study produced by his own university.
Here’s what happened.
Tennessee Republican Representative Diane Black, who has been pushing the EPA to adopt looser regulations for big trucks, asked Pruitt to roll back regulations on a certain kind of freight truck called a glider last July.
Previous EPA tests found gliders produce somewhere between 40 and 50 times more pollution than new trucks, but a study from Tennessee Tech published in 2016 found that gliders produce about the same levels of emissions as other trucks.
It turns out that the largest manufacturer of gliders, Tennessee-based Fitzgerald Glider Kits, funded the study and offered to build the university a spanking new research center to boot.
In November, Pruitt cited the study when he announced plans to ease up regulations on gliders. Faculty at Tennessee Tech asked the university to denounce the study on Friday, arguing that, among other things, it was a) conducted by an unsupervised graduate student and b) unverified. Then, on Wednesday, the EPA said in a statement that Pruitt’s decision didn’t have anything to do with the controversial study. … OK.
Continue at source:
Scott Pruitt plans to close an EPA office that studies how chemicals harm children.











