Tag Archives: based

This Eco-Friendly Smartphone Charger Generates Electricity from Plants

by MartinaLorenzo Posted on June 21, 2016

Could you imagine a world where you only had to look for the nearest houseplant tocharge up your smartphone? Believe it or not, plant-based electronic charging could be a reality much sooner than you think, thanks to Bioo Lite a new piece of technology that uses USB charger to harnesses the energy produced by plants via photosynthesis.

The USB charger is attached to a biological battery system that sits in the bottom of the pot beneath the plant. Thanks to the magic of water and bacteria within the system, electricity can be generated in one of the greenest and most energy efficient ways possible. Simply use any USB smartphone cable to plug into the USB port, which is disguised as a rock and sits at the plant’s base to begin charging your device.

According to Barcelona-based Arkyne Technologies (the creators of the charging system), electricity is collected around the clock so you can power up your deviceday or night. Depending on the type of plant being used and how well you’re able to stick with maintaining it, a single potted plant can produce anywhere from 3 to 40 watts of power, allowing you to fully charge up your device 2 to 3 times every day.

The charger also has equal output to charging up your device via USB from a laptop or desktop computer, so you don’t have to worry about waiting around forever for it to be fully charged. All you have to do is keep watering your plant as needed and you can keep using the charger for years. Even if your plant ends up dying, you can always remove the system and use it with another plant.

Although different types of plants will generate power at different rates, any potted plant can be used with the charger. The creators only recommend against opting to usethe charger with a cactus. Cacti don’t need a lot of water!

Now you might be wondering, if the system is relying on the plantfor power, doesn’t that harm it in some way? Arkyne Technologies claim that the the system doesn’t force the plant to do or create anything else or anything more than what it already does naturally. The technology used by the system and the process itself doesn’t stress or damage the plant in any way.

So, would you be interested in getting one of your own? Well, it looks like you may have to wait at least another year or two. The Bioo Lite project was launchedon Indiegogo as a crowdfundingand just recently closed.

Backers who got in while it was open were able to reserve a Bioo charging system of their own for about $135.Production is scheduled to start in September to deliver the systems to backers first and the creators hope to push the system into the commercial market sometime in 2017.

There certainly seems to be a lot of skeptics, which isn’t surprising, but hey any innovative technology that encourages people to have more plants seems worth a try!

Related Articles
Exposure to Bright Light Might Impact Metabolism
5 Plant-Based Remedies to Soothe Aching Joints
6 Natural Alternatives to Toxic Toothpaste

Photo Credit: Arkyne Tech via YouTube

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Read this article: 

This Eco-Friendly Smartphone Charger Generates Electricity from Plants

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Eco-Friendly Smartphone Charger Generates Electricity from Plants

Are Wall Street Profits Fundamentally Based on Consumer Laziness?

by LoreenDavidson Posted on April 25, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Brad DeLong:

It used to be that we collectively paid Wall Street 1% per year of asset value–which was then some 3 years’ worth of GDP–to manage our investment and payments systems. Now we pay it more like 2% per year of asset value, which is now some 4 years’ worth of GDP.

He is responding to a post by Noah Smith that, when I click on it, turns out to be a response to me. My question was simple: finance is a very competitive industry, so how has it stayed so astronomically profitable for so long? Smith suggests that part of the answer is lending to households, but another part is asset management fees:

Asset-management fees are middleman costs that all kinds of players in the finance industry charge to move money around….The amount of wealth in the U.S. economy has soared since 1980 — just think of the rises in the housing and stock markets over that time — meaning that the middlemen in the finance industry have been taking their percentage fees out of a much larger pool of assets.

….But why have profits from these middleman fees stayed so high? Why haven’t asset-management charges gone down amid competition? In a recent post, I suggested one answer: people might just be ignoring them. Percentage fees sound tiny — 1 percent or 2 percent a year. But because that slice is taken off every year, it adds up to truly astronomical amounts. So if people are just ignoring what middlemen skim off the top, because each fee seems small, investors could be handing significant fractions of the country’s GDP to the financial sector out of sheer carelessness. That would certainly keep profits high; if many investors pay no attention to what they’re being charged, more competition can’t push down those fees.

So a combination of rising asset values and unchanging management fees can explain a large part of both finance’s growth and its continued profitability.

James Kwak has more here, basically suggesting that lots of people pay high fees for actively-managed funds deliberately. They figure that the higher price means better performance, just as a higher price usually means better performance in most areas of the consumer economy.

If Smith and Kwak are right, it means the enormous profitability of the financial system is based primarily on products sold to consumers (mutual funds, home loans), not to services offered to the rich or to the rest of the industry. Is this true? To find out, someone would have to break out industry profitability by product line (so to speak) and figure out where most of the money is coming from. Has anyone ever done that?

Visit site: 

Are Wall Street Profits Fundamentally Based on Consumer Laziness?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Wall Street Profits Fundamentally Based on Consumer Laziness?

Suicide Rates Are Up, But the Most Obvious Explanations Are Probably All Wrong

by LaureneT40 Posted on April 23, 2016

Mother Jones

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

The CDC reports that the suicide rate was up again in 2014, and the Washington Post immediately offers some possible reasons. I’ve added numbers for easy reference:

(1) Last decade’s severe recession, (2) more drug addiction, (3) “gray divorce,” (4) increased social isolation, and even (5) the rise of the Internet and social media may have contributed to the growth in suicide, according to a variety of people who study the issue.

But (6) economic distress — and dashed hopes generally — may underpin some of the increase, particularly for middle-aged white people. The data showed a 1 percent annual increase in suicide between 1999 and 2006 but a 2 percent yearly hike after that, as the economy deteriorated, unemployment skyrocketed and millions lost their homes.

David French comments:

There’s much more to say about this, but millions of our fellow citizens — friends and neighbors — are experiencing existential crises that are far beyond the ability of politics to solve. With civil society faltering, families fracturing, and millions of Americans “bowling alone,” the human toll will only continue to rise. God forgive our nation for believing we could build a culture without you.

Let’s slow down a bit. The causes of suicide are complex, and correlations are hard to prove. Still, there are a couple of things we can say. First, there should at least be a correlation if you’re claiming causation, and second, the purported cause had better come first. You can’t blame increased suicide on things that didn’t happen until years later.

With that in mind, let’s look at recent suicide rates for men. Not only does this help us control for gender, but it’s also a less noisy set of data since men commit suicide at nearly 4x the rate of women. It turns out that suicide rates barely budged between 1999-2005, so I’m going to look only at 2005-14. The chart is on the right, with suicide rates divided into three 3-year buckets. Here are some things we can say based on this and other data in the CDC report:

The Great Recession (and economic distress more generally) doesn’t really fit the facts. The suicide rate went up the most from 2005-2008, before the Great Recession. It went up the least from 2011-14. But if prolonged economic distress was at fault, you’d expect just the opposite: no effect before the recession and the greatest effect after it had been grinding away for a couple of years with no relief in sight.
Drug addiction is more plausible—but only modestly. According to HHS, marijuana use is up since 2005, but that’s an unlikely cause of suicide. Cocaine, hallucinogen, and illicit prescription drug use is down. Heroin use and heroin dependence are up. Overdose deaths among heroin and prescription opioid users are also up—but they’ve been rising since 2002 and it’s unclear how many of these deaths are suicides anyway. More generally, overall drug addiction rates have waxed and waned over the past five decades, and it’s difficult to tease out a correlation between addiction and suicide rates over the long term.
“Gray divorce” has been a thing since the 80s, well before the suicide rate started rising. It hit the mainstream in early 2007 with the publication of Calling It Quits, also before the suicide rate started rising. What’s more, suicide rates have been flat among the elderly since 1999. It’s other age groups that have seen an increase. This is unlikely to be more than a minuscule cause at most.
Increased social isolation could be a cause, but the 2006 paper that kicked off this discussion suggested only that Americans had become more isolated between 1985 and 2004. This corresponds to a period when suicide was declining or flat. What’s more, a 2009 Pew study that replicated the 2006 research found a substantially smaller—possibly zero—effect.
Internet and social media could also be a cause, though I don’t really see what the mechanism is supposed to be. And that 2009 Pew study found that internet and cell phone users were less isolated than others.

We also know that suicide is up only among whites and Native Americans, but not among Hispanics or African-Americans. So any theory about the rise of suicide needs to at least engage with what might cause this. Are whites more economically distressed than blacks? That seems distinctly unlikely. Do they have higher drug addiction rates? Higher social isolation? More family fracturing? Maybe, but I’d like to see the evidence. And what about overall life satisfaction rates? They seem to have been quite stable over the past few decades. This doesn’t suggest that growing existential angst is the cause.

My point here is not really that the increase in suicide rates can’t possibly be due to any of these things. A deeper dive might implicate any of them. What’s more, a lot of these possible causes affect a lot of people. But although suicide has seen a large percentage increase since 2005, in absolute terms it’s only gone up by about 1000 per year. That’s a small number, which makes it really hard to tease out from large-scale effects. A mere 1 percent change in the Gallup life satisfaction index, for example, represents a couple of million people, so it’s unlikely to give us much insight into relatively tiny changes in the suicide rate.

So what is my point? Just this: writers need to be careful not to casually project their own sentiments or guesses onto a topic like this. Sure, the Great Recession might be the cause of more suicides. Maybe existential crises and fracturing families are the cause. Opioid abuse could be a factor. But just because these all seem plausible doesn’t mean they’re true. Likewise, just because you personally don’t like the direction of American culture doesn’t mean they’re true either—no matter how true they seem. None of them should be tossed out casually.

For my money, we flatly don’t know what’s causing the increase in suicides over the past decade. Based on the size of the numbers and the evidence at hand, if you put a gun to my head I’d probably guess opioid abuse was the biggest cause. But I don’t know, and I’m not sure anyone else knows either.

More: 

Suicide Rates Are Up, But the Most Obvious Explanations Are Probably All Wrong

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Suicide Rates Are Up, But the Most Obvious Explanations Are Probably All Wrong

Your Boss Wants You to Think Twice About That Back Surgery

by EttaSpivey Posted on February 17, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Corporations typically use data mining of personal information in order to sell more stuff to their customers. However, corporate wellness programs are mostly used in an effort to sell less stuff to their employees. For example:

Based on data such as an individual’s history, the firms can identify a person who might be considering costly procedures like spinal surgery, and can send that person recommendations for a second opinion or physical therapy.

Spinal surgery, which can cost $20,000 or more, is another area where data experts are digging in. After finding that 30% of employees who got second opinions from top-rated medical centers ended up forgoing spinal surgery, Wal-Mart tapped Castlight to identify and communicate with workers suffering from back pain.

To find them, Castlight scans insurance claims related to back pain, back imaging or physical therapy, plus pharmaceutical claims for pain medications or spinal injections. Once identified, the workers get information about measures that could delay or head off surgery, such as physical therapy or second-opinion providers.

So what do you think? Programs designed to lower health care costs are a good idea. Providing useful health information to employees is a good idea. But how about providing information specifically designed to influence a course of treatment? Is this an attempt to steer employees away from fly-by-night doctors who recommend back surgery for everyone? Or just another green-eyeshade attempt to persuade employees to forego expensive procedures?

Hey, those are good questions! Answers will be forthcoming some day.

Visit source – 

Your Boss Wants You to Think Twice About That Back Surgery

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Your Boss Wants You to Think Twice About That Back Surgery

An Update on the Yosemite Park Trademark Dispute

by Marjori51B Posted on January 17, 2016

Mother Jones

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

I wrote a post yesterday about a New York company that claims it owns the trademark to various locations at Yosemite National Park. Based on the story I read, this seemed obviously outrageous, and that was the tone I took.

But that was probably wrong. I ended up looking into this issue a little more deeply, and it turns out that the whole thing goes back several years and is actually a fairly pedestrian contract dispute. Here’s a quick outline of what happened:

In 1993, the National Park Service put up the concessions at Yosemite for bid. The winner was Delaware North, which was required to buy the assets of the Curry Company as part of the deal. This included the Ahwahnee Hotel, Camp Curry, and several other pieces of property.
In July 2014 the concessions were once again put up for bid. The winning bidder would be required to pay Delaware North fair market value for the assets it owned, which included real property such as the Ahwahnee and Camp Curry, as well as “other property.”
The Park Service initially valued the “other property” at $22 million. In December 2014 it increased its valuation to $30 million, which included an estimate of $3.5 million for intangible property. Of this, $1.63 million covered trademarks and other intellectual property.
Delaware North disagreed with this assessment. It valued “other property” at about $100 million, which included an estimate of $51 million for intangible property. Of this, $44 million covered trademarks and other intellectual property.
Delaware North filed a protest with the GAO over the Park Service valuation, but in April 2015 the GAO dismissed the protest.
June 2015 Aramark won the Yosemite contract.
In September 2015 Delaware North took the case to court.

And that’s pretty much where we stand today. It turns out there’s nothing inherently outrageous about Delaware North owning some of these trademarks, as even the Park Service admits. “We have not denied the fact that they do own intellectual property,” said Scott Gediman, a spokesman for Yosemite National Park. “But with these trademarks, it’s kind of two issues: One, are these trademarks valid, and, two, what is the value of them?” So this is a pretty routine contract dispute. Which trademarks are legit and which aren’t? Did Delaware North acquire these trademarks “surreptitiously” or with the knowledge of the Park Service? And how much are they worth? Delaware North says they’re worth $44 million. The Park Service says they’re worth $1.63 million. The issue is now in court, and Delaware North says it has offered to allow Aramark free use of the trademarks until the dispute is settled. Yesterday, however, the Park Service announced that it would simply rename everything and make the case moot.

It’s quite possible that Delaware North’s valuation is absurdly high. That’s my guess, since the value of these trademarks is mostly due to being attached to Yosemite Park, not to anything special that Delaware North has done to create or exploit them. But I’m no lawyer and I don’t know. That’s for a court to decide.

Original link:

An Update on the Yosemite Park Trademark Dispute

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Update on the Yosemite Park Trademark Dispute

8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

by LamarMcLendon Posted on January 16, 2016

Superfoodsare gaining popularityand for good reason. They directlysupport the immune system, reduceinflammation, support mental health,pack a nutritional punch,and boost energy, stamina and longevity.

Here are eightsuperfoods to watch in 2016 that are not only good for you, but also good for the planet:

1. Crickets

Long-consumed in many parts of the developing world, crickets are makingtheir way into cookies, milkshakes and other food items in the U.S.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Crickets are loaded with protein. They also thrive in hotter climates and survive off decaying waste and very little water and space,Mother Jonesreported.For this reason, crickets and other insects havebeenhailedas the next climate-friendly superfood. They can be ground into baking flour or protein powder, and addedto cookies, brownies ormilkshakes.

While eating cricketsor any type of insect for that matterhasnt completely caught on in the U.S., its making progress. Last year, fast food chainWayback Burgersput outa fake press release as anApril Fools jokeabout insect-filled milkshakes, but the idea was so popular that theyrolled out theirOreo Mud Pie Cricket Protein Milkshake.

2. Pulses

Theyre the dried seeds of lentils, beans and chickpeasand the UN hasdeclared2016 to be their year. They already make up 75 percent of the average diet in developing countries, but only 25 percent in developed ones, according to the UN.

That could all change, though. Pulses contain 20 to 25 percent protein by weight, approaching the protein levels of meat, which average30 to 40 percent. They also require far less water than meat to produce.

3. Amaranth

Amaranth is a complete source of protein.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Amaranth is the new quinoa, trend expert Daniel Levine toldThe Huffington Post. Its a grain-like seed that cooks quickly and can be added to salads, soups and stews. Its a complete source of protein just like quinoa, and it is loaded withfiber,B vitamins andseveral important minerals. Additionally, its beenshownto reduce inflammation, and lower cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

4. Kefir

Kefiris the trendiestfermentedfood right now (sorry, kombucha and kimchi).Its high in nutrients andprobiotics, and is incredibly beneficial for digestion andgut health.Many people consider it to be a healthier and more powerful version ofyogurt.

To make it,grains (yeast and lactic acid bacteria cultures) are added to cow or goat milk. The concoction ferments over a 24-hour period and then the grains are removed from the liquid.

5.Teff

Sometimes written as tef or tef, this pseudo-grain (its technically a seed)has a high nutritional profile and a taste similarto that of amaranth or quinoa. Thisancient grainhas survived for centuries without muchhybridization or processing.Like most other ancient grains, its high in fiber, calcium and iron.

Traditionally cultivated inEthiopia and Eritrea, teff can be grown in a variety of conditions.Teff thrives in both waterlogged soils and duringdroughts, making it a dependable staple wherever its grown. No matter what the weather, teff crops will likely survive, as they are also relatively free of plant diseases compared to other cereal crops,Whole Grains Councilsaid.

Teff can grow where many other crops wont thrive, and in fact can be produced from sea level to as high as 3,000 meters of altitude, with maximum yield at about 1,800-2,100 meters high, the council said. This versatility could explain why teff is now being cultivated in areas as diverse as dry and mountainous Idaho and the low and wet Netherlands.

6. Moringa

Moringa can be ground intoa powder.Photo credit: Shutterstock

Its often called the the miracle tree or the tree of life, according toTIME. Its commonly found inAsian and African countries, and almost every part of itpods, leaves, seeds and rootsis edible. Its agood sourceof Vitamin B6, Vitamin C and iron. Not only does it pack a nutritional punch, its also afast-growing, drought-tolerant plantthat is a promising biofuel and medicinal source.

7. Kelp

Kelp grows super fast (up to two feet per day), and requires neither freshwater nor fertilizer. And rather than contributing to our carbon footprint, as many fertilizers and food sources do, seaweed cleanses the ocean of excess nitrogen and carbon dioxide,Mother Jonesreported. One kelpfarmer on the Long Island Sound evenclaimshesrestoringthe ocean while producing a sustainable food and fuel source.

8. Waste-Based Food

This isnt as weird as it sounds. In order to reducefood waste, restaurants are findingcreative waysto use the edibleparts of plants and animals that are often thrown out. Last year, award-winning chef Dan Barber held atwo-week pop-upat Blue Hill, his restaurant in New York City, where he cooked with spent grain, cocoa beans, pasta scraps andvegetablepulp.

Written by Cole Mellino. Reposted with permission from EcoWatch.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Link: 

8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Sunwarrior, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 8 Climate-Friendly Superfoods for 2016

Study Predicts Massive Tree Die-Off in the Southwestern US

by FDXDiane4749 Posted on January 6, 2016

A recent study has warned that the American Southwest may be facing a massive tree die-off as a result of climate change. The study, published in Nature Climate Change, examined the effects of anticipated climate change patterns on the coniferous forests of the Southwest. Unfortunately, researchers found that if global temperatures continue to rise as anticipated by scientists, it could spell disaster for these breathtaking natural landscapes.

Theforecastedtree die-off

Researchers simulated global temperature increases and examined their effects on trees. They simulated both an extreme scenario and a more moderate 2-degree rise in global temperatures, which is the current goal suggested by climate scientists to avoid catastrophic changes to the planetary ecosystem. Unfortunately, their findings showed that even if we do limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, it will only delay tree die-off by about a decade.

The extent to which we may lose our Southwestern forests will be based both on the current drought that is plaguing the region and the temperature increases were expected to face. The Washington Post explains that the drought will cause plants to close their stomata in order to retain water, depriving themselves of carbon.

Plants cant survive in a state of carbon deprivation, nor can they survive without adequate water. Scientists are anticipating that the problem will be detrimental to the health of the forests. According to the paper, 72 percent of Southwestern forests will die off by 2050, a mortality rate that is expected to hit 100 percent by 2100.

Why are trees important?

Trees are beneficial for both human health and that of the planet. A study published in the journal Environmental Pollution found that the presence of trees was responsible for preventing 670,000 annual cases of acute respiratory symptoms in the U.S. alone, primarily because our countrys trees absorbed 17.4 tonnes of air pollution. Based on that figure, scientists predict that investing in treesparticularly in polluted urban areascould save the country about $7 billion in annual health care costs.

However, our own respiratory health isnt the only reason we need trees. Trees, like all plants, sequester carbon and as most of us know by now, we need as much help as we can get when it comes to keeping atmospheric carbon levels balanced. American Forests notes that a single tree can sequester 48 pounds of carbon each year. Considering that the earth is populated by approximately 3 trillion trees, thats a staggering potential for atmospheric carbon reduction.

What can you do to help?

Unfortunately, the predicted tree die-off is bigger than any one of us. If were to prevent these kinds of die-offs from occurring, we need to focus on keeping global temperature increases under the 2-degree mark. Supporting reductions in carbon emissions, reducing our personal carbon footprints and making trees a priority in our communities is the best way to help. Here are a few ideas:

Support policymakers who put climate change action at the top of their priority lists.
Reduce your carbon footprint by using fewer resources in your own life, whether that means taking public transportation, upgrading your home to be more energy-efficient, or downsizing to minimize your households energy usage.
Conservewater. The Southwests current drought is no joke. Conserve water in your own home and throughout your day.
Get involved in your community. Development committees are responsible for deciding upon things like whether or not a new community will be dense and walkable or far-reaching and sprawly. The former reduces the need for carbon-emitting cars while conservingland for trees and wildlife. Your local community could also support the environment by planting more trees, encouraging sustainable landscaping and incentivizing the use of rainwater collection barrels or green rooftops.

Related
Climate Change is Putting Your Favorite Foods at Risk
How to Eat Vegan Without Feeling Deprived
How Do Animals Communicate?

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Visit site – 

Study Predicts Massive Tree Die-Off in the Southwestern US

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study Predicts Massive Tree Die-Off in the Southwestern US

Spreadsheet of the Day: How Many People Did VW Kill?

by MavisNewton7 Posted on September 24, 2015

Mother Jones

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

How many people did VW’s NOx defeat device kill? Over the weekend I did a rough estimate and figured that over the past six years VW’s excess NOx emissions probably killed about a dozen people in Southern California. Since then I’ve slightly revised my spreadsheet to account for an error, which increases my estimate to about 17 people killed. My figuring was based on:

50,000 cars sold in Southern California between 2009-2014
3,800 excess tons of NOx over six years
0.0044 deaths per ton of NOx

VW sold 500,000 altered cars in the US and 11 million cars worldwide, so this extrapolates to about 170 deaths in the United States and about 3,700 deaths worldwide.

The number of cars sold is a solid figure, and as near as I can tell the estimate of 0.0044 deaths per ton of NOx is reasonable (this paper estimates a range of .0019 to .0095). But others have come up with higher mortality estimates than mine based on a much higher estimate of excess NOx emissions. So here are my calculations:

The ICCT, which discovered the violation, says VW cars “exceeded the US-EPA Tier2-Bin5 (at full useful life) standard” by 10-35 times depending on model.
The Tier2-Bin5 standard is 0.07 grams per mile.
If VW cars averaged 30x the standard, that’s 2.1 grams per mile.
Based on (a) increasing sales year over year and (b) the fact that older cars have driven more miles, I figure that the affected cars have been driven about 1.6 billion total miles over six years.
That comes to 3.5 billion grams of NOx, or about 3,800 tons.

Over six years, this extrapolates to 38,000 tons for the United States. But at an excess emission rate of 30x, the Guardian figures about 31,000 tons per year. That’s five times my estimate.

My full spreadsheet is here. I invite comments.

Read more: 

Spreadsheet of the Day: How Many People Did VW Kill?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Spreadsheet of the Day: How Many People Did VW Kill?

China Finally Adopts Market-Based Value for its Currency, But We May Not Like the Results

by AdolphJanzen164 Posted on August 11, 2015

Mother Jones

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

For years the United States has been complaining that China artificially undervalues its currency, which makes their exports cheaper and gives them a trade advantage over American firms. In response, China has gradually let the renminbi rise. By 2015, it had roughly reached fair market value—though not all American politicians agreed about that.

But then the Chinese economy started going sour. Exports were down. The stock market crashed. Growth slowed. What to do? Answer: devalue the renminbi. But instead of doing it by fiat, pretend that you’re merely responding to market forces:

Every morning, Beijing sets a target for the trading of its currency against the U.S. dollar, then allows investors to buy and sell the currency for 2 percent more or less. Tuesday’s change relaxes the government’s control over setting that rate. The midpoint will now be set at the market’s closing rate for the previous day.

….Now, market forces could pressure the currency to depreciate rather than appreciate, making Chinese products comparatively cheaper….In China, the depreciation will be a boon for exporters and heavy industry, but bad news for companies that depend on imported goods. Shares of Chinese airlines plummeted on Tuesday, as analysts predicted that the higher cost of oil in U.S. dollars would weigh on their earnings.

It’s convenient to have a market-based policy as long as that produces a devaluation of the currency. But will Chinese authorities stick to this policy even when it means the renminbi will appreciate? Good question.

So what does it all mean? Here are a few obvious thoughts:

This is yet another vote of no confidence in the Chinese economy. When you put together everything that Chinese authorities have done over the past six months, I’d say they’re close to full-scale panic.
Investors are likely to push the renminbi even lower, and this is going to make life harder on anyone in China with dollar-denominated debt. This includes lots of local governments who have been financing the housing boom, which means this devaluation could hasten the housing bust everyone has been waiting for.
This will be a political issue in the US, but a tricky one. China is manipulating its currency to its own advantage—boo! hiss!—but has also adopted a policy that allows the renminbi’s value to be dictated by market forces—which is what we’ve been demanding all along. It will be interesting to see how all the Republican presidential candidates decide to respond to this.

Generally speaking, I think this should be taken as bad news. The world economy remains fragile, and if the Chinese economy is falling into recession—as the Chinese themselves seem to believe—it will affect all of us. And not in a good way. Stay tuned.

Continue at source:

China Finally Adopts Market-Based Value for its Currency, But We May Not Like the Results

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China Finally Adopts Market-Based Value for its Currency, But We May Not Like the Results

Your Playlist Can Change Your Life – Mindlin, Galina, DuRousseau, Don & Cardillo, Joseph

by Myrna Posted on June 5, 2015

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Your Playlist Can Change Your Life

10 Proven Ways Your Favorite Music Can Revolutionize Your Health, Memory, Organization, Alertness and More

Mindlin, Galina, DuRousseau, Don & Cardillo, Joseph

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $0.99

Publish Date: January 1, 2012

Publisher: Sourcebooks, Inc

Seller: Sourcebooks, Inc.


From internationally renowned brain scientists, Your Playlist Can Change Your Life teaches how to use your favorite music to enhance your health, memory, organization, alertness, and more. Readers will learn how to use the power of music to attain increased levels of performance as well as enhance their ability to fight off the negatives of stress, insomnia, anxiety, depression, and even addiction. Based on author-conducted research that&apos;s not available anywhere else on shelf, this is a book that speaks to the music lover in all of us. Your Playlist Can Change Your Life offers a natural way to a better you simply by listening.

View post – 

Your Playlist Can Change Your Life – Mindlin, Galina, DuRousseau, Don & Cardillo, Joseph

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, oven, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Your Playlist Can Change Your Life – Mindlin, Galina, DuRousseau, Don & Cardillo, Joseph