Tag Archives: charts

Relax, You’re Probably Doing OK As a Parent

Mother Jones

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

A recent research paper suggests that the amount of time you spend actively parenting your children doesn’t really make much difference. Lots of people have cried foul. Justin Wolfers is one of them:

This nonfinding largely reflects the failure of the authors to accurately measure parental input. In particular, the study does not measure how much time parents typically spend with their children. Instead, it measures how much time each parent spends with children on only two particular days — one a weekday and the other a weekend day.

The result is that whether you are categorized as an intensive or a distant parent depends largely on which days of the week you happened to be surveyed. For instance, I began this week by taking a couple of days off to travel with the children to Disneyworld. A survey asking about Sunday or Monday would categorize me as a very intense parent who spent every waking moment engaged with my children. But today, I’m back at work and am unlikely to see them until late. And so a survey asking instead about today would categorize me as an absentee parent. The reality is that neither is accurate.

Trying to get a sense of the time you spend parenting from a single day’s diary is a bit like trying to measure your income from a single day.

This really doesn’t hold water. Sure, Justin’s Monday this week might be different from his usual Monday. But if your sample size is big enough, this all washes out in the averages. And in this case, the sample size is 1,605, which is plenty big enough to account for individuals here and there whose days are atypical for the particular week of the study. This is basic statistics.

At the risk of igniting a parenting war—and no, I don’t have children—middle-class parents tend to resolutely reject the idea that their parenting matters a lot less than they think. It’s easy to understand why, but unfortunately, there’s a considerable amount of evidence that parenting styles per se have a surprisingly small impact on the personalities and life outcomes of children. Obviously this doesn’t hold true at the extremes, but for the broad middle it does.

In a way, this shouldn’t come as a big surprise. We all know families whose children are wildly different even though they share parents and share half their genes just to make them even more similar. Is this because the children have been treated extremely differently? That’s unlikely. They’ll be treated differently to some degree—boys vs. girls, firstborns vs. middle kids, etc.—but the differences generally aren’t immense. What’s more, the differences that do exist are often reactions to the personalities of the kids themselves. A quiet child will get treated one way, while a loud, demanding child will get treated a different way. But parents shouldn’t mix cause and effect: the child’s temperament is largely driving the difference in treatment, not the other way around.

There’s a second way this shouldn’t come as a surprise: when you think about it, parenting is a surprisingly small part of a child’s upbringing. There are also peers. And school. And innate personalities. And socioeconomic status. And babysitters. And health differences. Parenting is a part of the mix, but not even the biggest part. Maybe 20 percent or so. The rest is out of your direct control.

Judith Rich Harris made this case at length in The Nurture Assumption, and it’s a controversial book. But I think she’s right on the basics. As an example, think about this: kids whose parents come from a different country generally grow up speaking English with an American accent. Why? Because they take their cues from peers, not parents. Their peers, and their interactions with peers, are more important than their parents. This means that the single biggest difference you can make is to be rich enough to afford to live in a nice neighborhood that provides nice playmates and good schools.

Now, none of is a license to ignore your kids—I’m not personally as dismissive of parenting as Harris, and it seems clear that parenting styles do have some impact—but parenting probably matters less than you think. Kids are born with personalities, and to the extent they get molded, there are lots of influences. Direct parenting styles play only a moderate role.

But my experience is that middle-class parents pretty flatly reject this idea. They simply can’t stand the idea that they’re unable to guide their kids in the direction they want. And yet, the number of kids who don’t take after their parents is enormous. Neat parents raise slobs. Quiet parents raise extroverts. Honest parents raise crooks. Pacifist parents raise Army recruits. Bohemian parents raise Wall Street analysts.

So this latest study is probably roughly right. You might not like it, but it’s probably right. And there’s good news here too: Don’t beat yourself up too badly if you think you’re blowing it as a parent. Unless you’re way off the charts, you’re probably doing OK.

Link – 

Relax, You’re Probably Doing OK As a Parent

Posted in Accent, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Relax, You’re Probably Doing OK As a Parent

2014 Was the Biggest Year For Solar Power Ever

Mother Jones

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

We’ve noted here before the many ways in which solar power is blowing up in the United States: Adding tons of jobs, driving progressive policies, and attracting millions of dollars in investment from major corporations. It’s not slowing down anytime soon: New data from market analysis firm GTM Research finds that 2014 was solar’s biggest year ever, with 30 percent more photovoltaic installations installed than in 2013. Check it out:

GTM

Those numbers are even more impressive when you compare them to other types of energy sources. Even though solar still accounts for a small share of US electricity generation (less than 1 percent), last year it added nearly as many new megawatts to the grid as natural gas, which is quickly catching up on coal as the country’s primary energy source. (Coal, you can see, added almost nothing new in 2014.)

GTM

The report points to three chief reasons for the boom. First, costs are falling, not just for the panels themselves but for ancillary expenses like installation and financing, such that overall prices fell by 10 percent compared to 2013. Second, falling costs have allowed both large utility companies and small third-party solar installers to pursue new ways to bring solar to customers, including leasing panels and improved on-site energy storage. Third, federal incentives and regulations have been relatively stable in the last few years, while state incentives are generally improving, particularly in states like California and Nevada that have been leading the charge.

One more chart worth pointing out: Rooftop solar tends to get the most press because that’s where homeowners and solar companies get into tussles with big incumbent power companies and the state regulators that often side with them. And it’s true that a new home gets solar more often than a giant solar farm gets constructed. But on a sheer megawatt basis, utility-scale solar is still far and away the leading source, with a few notable projects coming online in 2014, like the Topaz Solar project in the California desert, the largest solar installation in the world.

GTM

More: 

2014 Was the Biggest Year For Solar Power Ever

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2014 Was the Biggest Year For Solar Power Ever

We Lock Up Tons of Innocent People—and Charge Them for the Privilege

Mother Jones

The United States has a prison problem. We have just 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. Even though our imprisonment rate has grown more than 400 percent since 1970, locking people up has not proved to be a deterrent.

The prison problem also extends to jails, which hold defendants awaiting trial and prisoners sentenced for minor offenses. A new report from the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit focused on justice policy, reports that America’s local jails, which hold roughly 731,000 people on any given day, are holding more people even though the crime rate is going down. Jails disproportionately detain people of color longer and for lesser crimes. The report also finds that jails are less likely to give inmates the rehabilitation and mental-health support that could keep them out of prison.

Inside the Wild, Shadowy, and Highly Lucrative Bail Industry

“I observe injustice routinely. Nonetheless even I—as this report came together—was jolted by the extent to which unconvicted people in this country are held in jail simply because they are too poor to pay what it costs to get out,” writes Vera president and director Nicholas Turner. He described poor detention practices in which the mentally ill, homeless, and substance abusers are routinely jailed for bad behavior and described the practice as “destructive to individuals, their families, and entire communities.”

The 46-page report paints a devastating portrait of American jails. Here are a few quick takeaways:

1. The number of people going to jail is going up while crime rates are falling: In 1983, roughly 6 million people were admitted to a local jail. That number grew to roughly 11.7 million in 2013. Meanwhile, crime rates have been dropping. See Vera’s chart:

Jail admissions rates include people who’ve gone to jail more than once—recidivism is a separate, but related issue—but even factoring that in, more people are going to jail. The report speculates that this is tied to arrests for drug crimes: In 1983, drug defendants and inmates made up less than 10 percent of local jail populations but by 2002 they accounted for 25 percent.

2. Jail time is getting longer: Once people land in jail, their average stay has increased nearly 65 percent, from 14 days to 23. This statistic doesn’t distinguish between pretrial detention and those serving actual jail terms, but, as the report notes, “the proportion of jail inmates that are being held pretrial has grown substantially in the last thirty years—from about 40 to 62 percent—it is highly likely that the increase in the average length of stay is largely driven by longer stays in jails by people who are unconvicted of any crime.”

3. People who go to jail often work less and earn less after getting out: Spending any time in jail can, and usually does, significantly alter someone’s ability to lead a normal life upon release. Plus, many jail inmates have to pay fees for laundry service, room and board, and even booking fees. Even if they’re later found innocent, they still must pay those bills, leaving many former defendants indebted to the system.

Consider Kevin Thompson, a Georgia man who had been jailed once and was jailed again for not paying $838 in traffic fines, court fees, and probation fees to a private probation company.

4. Lack of money is the main reason defendants sit in jail: The report comes to a depressing, if not surprising, conclusion: “Money, or the lack thereof, is now the most important factor in determining whether someone is held in jail pretrail. Almost everyone is offered monetary bail, but the majority of defendants cannot raise the money quickly or, in some cases, at all.” This leads to situations where people are stuck in jail for minor offenses. A 2010 Human Rights Watch report found that in about 19,000 criminal cases in New York City, many people couldn’t afford bail set at $1,000 or less. In some cases, the accused pled guilty early to get out of jail, even if they were innocent.

5. Society’s race problems are amplified by the local jail dynamic: The Vera report notes that about 38 percent of felony defendants will spend their entire pretrial periods in jail, but only one in 10 were denied bail in the first place. The rest, many of whom are African American men, simply can’t afford to post bail: “Black men appear to be caught in a cycle of disadvantage: incarcerated at higher rates and, therefore, more likely to be unemployed and/or in debt, they have more trouble posting bail.”

Continued – 

We Lock Up Tons of Innocent People—and Charge Them for the Privilege

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Lock Up Tons of Innocent People—and Charge Them for the Privilege

Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Mother Jones

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

With measles cases in the United States at a 20-year high, some Republican presidential hopefuls have gotten heat for pandering to conservative voters who doubt extensive scientific evidence that vaccines don’t cause autism. With Chris Christie and Rand Paul making controversial comments on the issue, Hillary Clinton came out strongly Monday night on the side of science:

But in 2008—when a widespread theory linking vaccines to autism had already been debunked—Clinton wasn’t so definitive on this point. In response to a questionnaire from an autism advocacy group, she wrote, “I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out.”

Clinton has a long history of supporting efforts to get children vaccinated. In 1993, she spearheaded the Childhood Immunization Initiative and the Vaccines for Children program, which aimed to make vaccines affordable. Yet, she also has been a strong voice for families dealing with autism, calling in 2007 for $700 million per year to fund research and education. Her comments in 2008 reflected a certain tension to advocating on both fronts.

More stories on vaccines and outbreaks:


Vaccines Work. These 8 Charts Prove It.


Map: The High Cost of Vaccine Hysteria


How Many People Arenâ&#128;&#153;t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?


Measles Cases in the US Are at a 20-Year High. Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers.


This PBS Special Makes the Most Powerful Argument for Vaccines Yet


Mickey Mouse Still Stricken With Measles, Thanks to the Anti-Vaxxers


If You Distrust Vaccines, You’re More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings

She also wasn’t the only prominent Democrat hedging about autism and vaccines during the 2008 election cycle: At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania that April, Barack Obama was asked about a link. “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate,” he replied. “Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines…The science is right now inconclusive, but we have to research it.”

It used to be more politically difficult for Democrats to come out swinging against anti-vaxxers, a problem that now appears to be growing for Republicans. In 2009, 26 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats believed parents should be able to decide whether to vaccinate their kids. Now, according to a new Pew survey, 34 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats hold that view.

Obama’s position has evolved too: On Sunday, he urged parents to get their kids vaccinated. “There aren’t reasons not to,” he said.

Originally posted here: 

Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Says All Kids Should Get Vaccinated—But She Wasn’t Always So Certain

Friday Cat Blogging – 30 January 2015

Mother Jones

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

My fatigue level is off the charts today. I have no idea what’s causing this. But there are always plenty of catblogging pictures available, and you can hardly go wrong with Hilbert in a bag, can you? Enjoy.

Visit source:  

Friday Cat Blogging – 30 January 2015

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 30 January 2015

Watch Almonds Suck California Dry

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
A worker watches an almond harvesting machine dump nuts near the town of Kerman, California.

Photographer Matt Black remembers the moment in December 2013 when he realized the drought in California had begun. The brown-hills in the horizon stretched into a cloudless blue winter sky. It was quiet. Too quiet.

“It was just this, yawning kind of silence,” Black says. “And that’s when I started working. It was just clear that this was going to be really bad.”

More stories about the almond boom and what it means for California.


Invasion of the Hedge Fund Almonds


Charts: Almonds Suck as Much Water Annually as LA Uses in 3 Years


Photos: The Story Behind California’s Nut Boom


It Takes How Much Water to Grow an Almond?!


Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters

Black has spent the better part of the last year documenting the drought. “For most of it I felt like I was coated in dust—in my eyes, my ears, my cameras—everywhere.” In the summer, the temperature rose well above 100 degrees. “One day I was taking pictures of abandoned fields near I-5. It was a 114 degrees and the dust was blowing and there was not a single bit of green in sight,” he says. “At that moment, it felt like the entire Valley was about to catch fire.”

His photos, which have appeared in The New Yorker, Time, and National Geographic, among other publications, offer a glimpse into the lives and livelihoods of the Central Valley. In black and white, Black, who was recently named Time‘s Instagram Photographer of the Year, aims to capture “the flatness, uniformity and to a certain extent monotony of this way of farming. He adds, “It’s not a land of quaint little farms and pastoral scenes. These are factories, and that’s why they are important—because they feed millions.”

But it is the people who reside in the communities hit hardest that Black hopes to highlight with his work—those who are forced to drink water from bottles, who cannot flush a toilet, or take a shower without the use of a bucket. “Yes, the drought is huge and catastrophic and all those things that everyone by this point is pretty much aware of,” he says. “But what people aren’t aware of is how that filters down to some of these towns. What photos are really best suited for is to try to put a face on the problem—to make it concrete and real.”

All photos by Matt Black.

Near the town of Ducor, California, a newly planted pistachio orchard.

A worker loads crates of almonds at a processing plant near Los Banos, California.

A worker sorts almonds at the processing plant near Los Banos.

A worker drives an almond-harvesting machine in an orchard near the town of Kerman, California.

A pistachio tree in a newly planted orchard near the town of Alpaugh, California.

A worker checks pistachio trees in a newly planted orchard near the town of Alpaugh, California.

Workers repair a well near Alpaugh, California.

Water pumped from wells fills a storage canal in a newly planted orchard near Alpaugh, California.

A home in the town of Alpaugh. Overpumping in nearby orchards has forced the closure of one of the town’s wells, and Alpaugh’s water supply now has high levels of arsenic contamination.

Jorge Cruz collects water from his kitchen sink at his home in Alpaugh.

Jorge Cruz stores drinking water at his home in Alpaugh.

An almond shaker knocks nuts from a tree in an orchard near Firebaugh, California.

View this article: 

Watch Almonds Suck California Dry

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch Almonds Suck California Dry

Invasion of the Hedge Fund Almonds

Mother Jones

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

By Tom Philpott | Mon Jan. 12, 2015 6:00 AM ET

On a sunbaked August morning, off a rural road in the heart of California’s Central Valley, a low-slung tractor rumbles between neat rows of identical, light-green trees. To its right, a plume of dust billows up, thick enough to blot out the sky above the treetops. A chute on the truck sends a steady stream of almonds flying into the trailer hitched behind.

Sweating as I skitter around to avoid the moving tractor, I’m witnessing what has emerged as one of the Central Valley’s most lucrative rituals: the almond harvest. Here in western Fresno County, which generates more than a fifth of California’s almonds, production has more than doubled since 2005. Almonds are now nearly as valuable as the state’s vaunted grape harvest.

Learn more about photographer Matt Black’s project documenting the communities affected by the California drought.

Another truck has already been through the orchard, armed with a giant metal forceps that grabs each tree trunk and shakes it violently for a few seconds, sending nuts clattering to the ground like a slow-moving hailstorm. Next, sweepers come through, mounding the almonds into long, narrow piles along the center of each row. Last comes the harvester to hoover them up.

The pale, sandy soil is bone-dry—hence all the dust. But that has nothing to do with the drought that is gripping California, the region’s worst in decades. The San Joaquin Valley, which forms the southern half of the 450-mile-long Central Valley, is technically a desert: In good years, it relies on irrigation water guided in from mountain ranges to the north and east through an impressive system of channels. And in the weeks before a harvest, almond farmers cut way back on watering, both to hasten the ripening of the nuts and to ensure a dry bed for them when they fall. The harvest is a notoriously hot, dusty affair.

Charts and maps by Julia Lurie and Lei Wang.

As I gape at the efficiency on display—just a few workers and machines can harvest thousands of trees in several hours—an angry voice cuts through the truck’s roar. “Hey!” It’s a guy who looks to be in his 20s, slender, in a dusty baseball cap, a plaid shirt, and jeans. He says he’s heard from my travel companions—a photographer and an almond specialist from the University of California Cooperative Extension named Gurreet Brar—that I’m a magazine writer looking into California’s almond boom. He demands to know what my angle is. Am I going to blame almonds for the state’s mounting water woes, like other articles have?

When I assure him I’m after the whole story, he softens. He declines to give his name or be interviewed at length, but says his family farms almonds, apricots, and raisin grapes. Now they’re pulling the grapes to put in more almonds—raisins, he explains, aren’t a very well-marketed crop, so it’s harder to make a profit. And with that, he excuses himself to go manage the harvest.

His logic is unassailable. Almond products—snack mixes, butters, milk—are flying off supermarket shelves. The value of the California almond market hit $4.8 billion in 2012—that’s triple the level of a decade earlier. Only dairy is worth more to the state than almonds and grapes. In fact, almonds, along with California-grown pistachios and walnuts, are becoming so lucrative that big investment funds, eager to get in on the boom, are snapping up land and dropping in trees.

There’s just one problem: Almond orchards require about a third more water per acre than grape vineyards. In fact, they’re one of California’s thirstiest crops. It takes a gallon of water to produce a single almond—more than three times the amount required for a grape and two and a half times as much for a strawberry. There’s more water embedded in just four almonds than there is in a full head of lettuce. But unlike row crops, which farmers can choose not to plant during dry spells, almond trees must be watered no matter what.

In the midst of the worst drought in California’s history, you might expect almonds’ extreme thirst to be a deal breaker. But it’s not. In fact, the drought has had hardly any impact at all on the almond boom. The state’s farmers bought at least 8.33 million young almond trees between July 2013 and July 2014, a 25 percent increase from the previous year. About a quarter of the saplings went to replace old orchards, but most of the rest were new plantings, some 48,000 acres’ worth, an area equal to three Manhattans.

A worker drives a harvester through an orchard.

In order to thrive, almond trees need a Mediterranean climate, hot summers and mild winters. Those come free in the Central Valley. But steady access to water is just as crucial to an almond grove’s success. So where is the water for all these new orchards coming from? No longer California’s famed irrigation projects, which draw on the state’s rivers and have slowed to a trickle during the drought. Instead, farmers are tapping into groundwater.

In all of the other water-scarce states in the West, authorities restrict how much water a user can pump out of the ground. But in California, landowners can drop a well wherever they want, unimpeded by the state. Some counties require permits for wells (though they’re usually easy to get), and in a few Central Valley watersheds, things have gotten so contentious that courts have stepped in to limit water pumping. But mostly, California groundwater is yours for the taking. As the State Water Resources Control Board puts it on its website, “To get a right to groundwater, you simply extract the water and use it for a beneficial purpose.”

As a result, Central Valley farmers have for years been drawing down groundwater at an alarming rate. Between 2003 and 2010, the valley’s aquifers lost a total of 20 cubic kilometers of groundwater—enough to meet the household water needs of New York City for 11 years.

And then came the current drought, which started in 2011, when suddenly the region’s groundwater was being pumped up at an estimated rate of nearly seven cubic kilometers per year. That’s the same amount of water that everyone in Texas uses at home annually. Jay Famiglietti, a senior water scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who tracks groundwater depletion, points out that no one knows exactly how much water is left in the region’s aquifers—mainly because the state’s lax regulation means no one keeps track—but the current depletion rate has pushed the state “to the edge of a cliff,” he recently wrote. Meanwhile, several recent studies suggest that the West is actually in the early stages of a multidecade “megadrought.”

Experts worry that the combination of overpumping and drought could be catastrophic for the Central Valley, whose economy depends on being one of the world’s most productive farming areas. Richard Howitt, an agricultural economist at the University of California-Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, told me that he considers the situation “a slow-moving train wreck.”

You may think of almonds as the crunchy joy in your candy bar, the protein blast in your cereal. But to Wall Street, they have emerged as a white-hot global commodity—spawning a mini-gold-rush for the Central Valley, where more than 80 percent of the world’s almonds, as well as increasing percentages of pistachios and walnuts (43 percent and 28 percent, respectively), are grown.

Low in carbohydrates and high in monounsaturated fat and protein, these nuts are buoyed by a rising wave of nutritional consensus and diet fads (gluten-free, paleo, low-carb, etc.). In the United States, per capita almond consumption has jumped 225 percent since 2005—hitting two pounds per year and surpassing peanuts as America’s favorite nut. (Yes, botany sticklers, neither peanuts nor almonds are technically nuts; the former are legumes and the latter the seeds of drupes.) WhiteWave Foods (owner of the Silk brand) reports that US sales of its almond milk leapt 52 percent in the first quarter of 2014 compared to the previous year. Almond milk now makes up about two-thirds of the company’s total US faux-milk sales, trouncing even soy.

Our increasing fondness for nuts—along with a $28-million-a-year marketing campaign by the Almond Board of California—are part of what has prompted the almond boom. But the main driver comes from abroad. Nearly 70 percent of California’s almond crop is exported, with China the leading customer: Between 2007 and 2013, US almond exports to China and Hong Kong more than quadrupled, feeding a growing middle class’ appetite for high-protein, healthy food. Almonds now rank as the No. 1 US specialty crop export, beating wine by a count of $3.4 billion to $1.3 billion in 2012. (Walnuts and pistachios hold the third and fourth spots, each bringing in more than $1 billion in foreign sales.) As a result, wholesale almond prices jumped 78 percent between 2008 and 2012, even as production expanded 16 percent.

According to UC-Davis’ Howitt, the shift to almonds and other tree nuts is part of a long-term trend in California, the nation’s top agricultural state. Farmers in the Central Valley once grew mostly wheat and cattle. But over time, they have gravitated toward more-lucrative crops that take advantage of the region’s rare climate. “It’s a normal, natural process driven by market demand,” Howitt says. “We grow the stuff that people buy more of when they have more money.” Like nuts, which can replace low-margin products such as cotton, corn, or beef.

Family farms are reaping part of the almond windfall: According to the Almond Board of California, 72 percent of the state’s 6,500 almond farms are owned by families, and half are smaller than 50 acres. But massive financial interests—banks, pension funds, investment arms of insurance companies—are moving rapidly into the nut trade. Take TIAA-CREF, a New York-based retirement and investment fund with nearly a half-trillion dollars in total assets under management. The firm, which owns 37,000 acres of California farmland, claims to be one of the globe’s top five almond producers. On its website, TIAA-CREF says its California holdings produce more than 18 million pounds of almonds, or “enough to circle the world more than nine times.” In a report last year, the firm had one word for investors: nuts. It cited the rise of the nut-hungry Asian middle class and a global land base that’s “vanishing” because of urban sprawl, water scarcity, and environmental degradation. Almond orchards, said TIAA-CREF, were an “attractive long-term investment theme” with the potential to combine the steady income of bonds with the growth potential of stocks—a kind of investor’s holy grail.

Then there’s Hancock Agricultural Investment Group, a subsidiary of the sprawling Canadian insurance and financial services giant Manulife Financial. It manages $2.1 billion worth of farmland, mainly for large institutional investors like pension funds. Individuals can buy in—for a minimum investment of $5 million. HAIG owns at least 24,000 acres of almonds, pistachios, and walnuts, making it California’s second-largest nut grower. In a recent report to investors, HAIG reported that its nut holdings delivered more than 30 percent in total return (income from crop sales plus land appreciation) in 2013, far outpacing gains from its other crops like wine grapes, apples, cranberries, corn, and soybeans.

But the largest California nut grower of all is neither an insurance conglomerate nor (exactly) a family operation. Paramount Farms, owned by the Beverly Hills magnates Stewart and Lynda Resnick, has more than 70,000 acres of almonds and pistachios, and claims on its website to be the “world’s largest vertically integrated supplier” of those commodities, meaning that its operations control (and capture profits from) all the phases of production, from growing to processing and marketing. The power couple has also been adept at ensuring their nut and pomegranate plantations get plenty of surface water: They store it for dry years in the Kern Water Bank, a man-made, underground reservoir built by the state of California for public water storage. In an infamous deal in 1994, the Resnicks’ holding company gained a controlling interest in the water bank, making their nut groves less directly reliant on groundwater. Meanwhile, they’ve ramped up their campaign donations at the federal level, where lawmakers have a say in how much surface water—which, unlike groundwater, is highly regulated by both the federal and state governments—makes it into the Kern bank.

Having previously turned island water (Fiji) and pomegranate juice (Pom Wonderful) into ubiquitous products—and amassed a $3.8 billion fortune—the Resnicks have more recently turned their attention to pistachios, hiring the Korean rapper Psy and Stephen Colbert (“They’re wonderful. I’m wonderful…I think we’re done”) to pitch their Wonderful Pistachios brand.

According to Howitt, the flow of big money into almonds is a “rational response” to two broad economic factors: low interest rates, which make safe investments like bonds unattractive, and that ever-rising demand from China.

All summer long, the Central Valley is baking hot (100-plus-degree days are common) and dry as dust. Yet the valley ranks as one of the globe’s most productive farm landscapes, accounting for a third of US-grown fruits and vegetables. Making it bloom requires moving titanic amounts of water, mostly from snowmelt flowing down from the eastern mountain ranges and into California’s elaborate network of canals and aqueducts. Of this total—what the state refers to as “developed” water—agriculture uses about 80 percent, and almond groves suck up nearly 9 percent of that. That’s more than enough water, notes Carolee Krieger of the California Water Impact Network, to supply the yearly household needs of greater Los Angeles, San Diego, and the San Francisco Bay Area combined—around two-thirds of California’s population.

Even in good precipitation years, California agriculture has gotten so ravenous for surface water that the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, a critical engine of coastal biodiversity, stands at the edge of biological collapse. The state’s once-prolific salmon run, which depends on water making it all the way to the ocean, barely persists; more than 90 percent of marshes have been drained.

And when droughts hit, there’s not enough water to divert to agriculture either: Two major canal-and-pipeline systems that move water from the mountains to farmland—the federally run Central Valley Project and the California-run State Water Project—cut farmers off entirely for several months this year. While farmers can forgo annual crops like tomatoes and melons during droughts, failing to irrigate trees means losing the entire orchard. That leaves many nut and fruit farmers with only one option: groundwater. A recent UC-Davis study estimated that in the 2014 growing season, pumped-up groundwater will replace as much as 75 percent of the surface water that went missing due to the drought.

There’s a financial metaphor that helps to explain California’s dilemma. To live off surface water is to live off your paycheck. To rely on groundwater is to tap into your 401(k). Every draft you take is one that you won’t be able to replenish, at least not easily.

The water-drilling frenzy is worst in the San Joaquin Valley, which contains the great bulk of California’s almond and pistachio production. In most San Joaquin counties, the number of well permits nearly doubled between 2011 and 2013, an analysis of county records by the San Jose Mercury News found. This region is home to the epicenter of California’s nut juggernaut—Kern, Fresno, and Tulare counties, together known as the Tulare Basin. Kern and Fresno counties are by a wide margin the state’s leading almond producers, churning out 43 percent of California’s total harvest, or about one of every three almonds consumed on Earth.

The Almond Board of California likes to point out that almond production has become considerably less water-intensive as farmers have turned to drip irrigation and other methods for squeezing more crop from each drop. Gurreet Brar, the University of California Cooperative Extension almond specialist, tells me that the amount of water it takes to produce a pound of almonds has fallen by a third since 1990. But amped-up production has more than offset efficiency gains. As recently as 1995, California orchards were cranking out 370 million pounds of almonds a year. In 2013, they produced 2 billion pounds—a five-and-a-half-fold increase. Today, 80 percent of almonds consumed around the world, and about 40 percent of pistachios, come from California.

And land devoted to almonds just keeps growing, expanding by 20 percent between 2007 and 2013 and now reaching 940,000 acres, an area larger than Rhode Island. Pistachios are spreading at an even faster clip. Between 2005 and 2012, pistachio acreage jumped 75 percent.

Last summer, as orchards grew, the drought persisted, and the water tables dropped, the panicked California Legislature finally did something that agriculture interests had successfully fought back for a century: It took a baby step in the direction of groundwater regulation. Legislation passed in September orders the state’s watershed districts to create a framework for regulating groundwater—but the rules don’t go into effect for six years, and no one knows yet how effective they will be. They could take decades to make a difference, and they are still weaker than those of other Western states—for example, they don’t require a permitting process for new wells. Still, some farm groups—California’s Agricultural Council and Farm Bureau, along with nut growers and processors—were outraged by the new legislation and lobbied against it.

The day after my trip to Fresno, I’m making my way down dirt roads alongside irrigation ditches, into a stand of new pistachio trees planted in neat, monotonous rows nearly to the horizon: some nine square miles of scrawny saplings, connected by drip irrigation tubes. It’s like Iowa’s endless cornfields, but with nuts.

Deep inside the orchard, I come upon a three-man crew working on a massive well. A red crane towers 30 or so feet into the sky next to a stack of 20-foot metal pipes. The crew shoos us back, but my guide for the day, John Burchard, the soft-spoken, energetic octogenarian who manages the local municipal water supply, can tell they’re deepening a well.

A lanky man in dark dungarees, a long-sleeved blue work shirt, and a brown felt cowboy hat turned up sharply at the sides, Burchard has friendly eyes and a neatly trimmed white goatee. It’s his job to deliver safe water to the 1,026 residents of Alpaugh, a hardscrabble farmworker town in the heart of the parched Tulare Basin. Tulare County granted 831 well permits in 2013—more than any other county in the San Joaquin Valley, and twice as many as in 2011.

Alpaugh was once rich in water—in fact, it was an island, sitting in the middle of Tulare Lake, the biggest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River before it was drained in the early 20th century to feed irrigation projects. Ever since, the lake-bottom land around it has been fertile farm country.

But these days, things are dire. Under a morning sun still cranking up to full fire, Burchard shows me one of the town’s two active wells. For years, Alpaugh got its tap water from here. But as the drought dragged on, Burchard found the water table dropping a stunning 10 feet per week. By May, the well became inoperable. “If we kept using it, we’d soon be pumping air,” he says.

So he had to switch to the town’s other well, which is 100 feet deeper. It taps a different part of the aquifer with higher levels of naturally occurring arsenic. Burchard’s first well was barely compliant with the EPA’s arsenic limit, 10 parts per billion. The water from the deeper well had 30 parts per billion.

Chronic low-level exposure to arsenic has been linked to heart disease and cancer; children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable. When the water from Burchard’s second well hit Alpaugh’s taps, the town warned residents about the arsenic. They now rely on bottled water, spending roughly $1,200 annually per household, or $400,000 for all residents put together—a huge burden in a town largely made up of low-wage farmworkers. “That’s more than our total budget,” says Burchard, noting that the entire town government has about $300,000 to spend on water. With an extra $400,000, Burchard says, he could filter out the arsenic—”I could send rose water” through the taps.

Across the valley, the pumping frenzy is causing severe strains. Jessi Snyder, a community development specialist with Central Valley-based Self-Help Enterprises, says that several other towns in Tulare County struggle with similar arsenic issues. More than 300 residents of East Porterville saw their wells simply dry up last August, forcing the county to send in emergency bottled-water rations.

Meanwhile, under a recent decree from Gov. Jerry Brown, Burchard says he has to impose “severe” water use restrictions on Alpaugh’s residents, as part of a statewide effort to combat the drought. People who already can’t drink the water will now face tough rules on when they can water their lawns and gardens. As he explains what he calls this “bitter irony,” I look around at the town’s low-slung modest houses with their small yards supporting patches of grass and the occasional fruit tree. Peach trees that supply fresh fruit to cash-strapped families face water restrictions while the vast nut orchards around them thrive. Of course, any water savings Burchard manages to wring out of residents will amount to a rounding error compared to the water going to agriculture. In his irrigation district, just 2 percent of water goes to homes. The other 98 percent goes to farms.

In some Central Valley towns, residents now rely on bottled water when their wells run dry due to demand from nearby nut orchards.

When will California’s nut boom end? Might some other country—say, China—just step in and put down massive plantings? Doubtful, says David Doll, an orchard adviser with the University of California Cooperative Extension. No other region has California’s combination of land, climate, infrastructure, and research support to supplant it as the globe’s almond king. “India and China have tried, and failed,” he says.

But an ongoing almond boom will bear ecological costs along with vast profits. As the water table drops from overpumping, the remaining water picks up higher concentrations of minerals from deep in the earth. When orchards are irrigated with such hard water, the salts build up in the soil, eventually killing the trees. In Fresno County, I saw entire groves of almond trees looking yellow and wan, signs of salt stress. The land around Alpaugh is already too salty to support almonds; that’s why the pistachio is the nut of choice there.

The new groundwater legislation won’t solve the problems—at least not any time soon. It takes a gradualist approach to an urgent problem—the state’s most water-stressed districts don’t have to submit sustainability plans until 2020, and then they have additional 20 years to prevent a “significant and unreasonable depletion of supply,” which isn’t clearly defined.

And the California Water Impact Network’s Krieger fears that corporate farms will hijack the process. She says that the special water districts that the legislation calls on to regulate water are prone to takeover by private interests—like what happened when the Resnicks gained a controlling interest in the Kern Water Bank. “The last thing California needs is the privatization of our groundwater,” she says.

On the other hand, California’s nut industry may need strong regulation to save itself from its own thirst. In a September note to investors, Brett Hundley, an agribusiness analyst for BB&T Capital Markets, wrote that “the long-term viability of the industry depends on effective regulation, given sustained declines in surface water availability.” That is, without regulation, tree farms will use up the very water they depend on.

For now, Doll expects that the almond expansion will continue apace, ending only “when the crop stops making money”—if China loses its appetite for nuts, or the wells finally run dry. Until then, though, the orchards will surely keep growing. After my morning in Alpaugh, I headed about 40 miles south and west through Tulare County toward Lost Hills, a company town that houses the main almond-processing plant of the Resnicks’ Paramount Farms.

This area was once home to King Cotton, and I still saw the occasional soft green field. But mostly, the roads were lined with almond and pistachio groves. For mile after mile, I sped past orchards, the bushy canopy studded with this year’s bumper crop, gleaming and golden in the midday sun.

See the original article here – 

Invasion of the Hedge Fund Almonds

Posted in alo, ATTRA, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Invasion of the Hedge Fund Almonds

Finally Some Good News About Clean Energy Investment

Mother Jones

Clean energy investment around the world is rebounding after a three-year decline, according to new figures released today by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Globally, the total amount of clean energy investment jumped 16 percent in 2014, to $310 billion. That number is just shy of the record amount of investment set in 2011.

BNEF produces quarterly reports that track how much money governments and the private sector are pouring into wind, solar, biofuels and other green energy projects. In 2014, the United States enjoyed its biggest investments since 2012, but it was China that once again drove the numbers. China’s clean energy spending shot up 32 percent to a record $89.5 billion, cementing its place as the world’s top market for green investment. (You can get a sense of just how impressive Chinese investment is by peaking inside the the world’s biggest solar manufacturing factory, which is run by Chinese company Yingli.)

Solar is getting the lion’s share of investment around the world, according to the figures. Almost half the money spent on clean energy this year—just shy of $150 billion—was in the solar industry. Wind investment also reached record levels—$19.4 billion globally—thanks in part to offshore projects in Europe.

There was one darker patch in the numbers: Australia, where the government is trying to slash the country’s Renewable Energy Target, a policy that creates mandates for the amount of clean energy in the electricity mix. Bucking the global trend, investments there fell by 35 percent.

Read this article:  

Finally Some Good News About Clean Energy Investment

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Finally Some Good News About Clean Energy Investment

Study: Fracking Good; Coal Bad

Mother Jones

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

When scientists and policymakers talk about limiting climate change, what they’re mainly talking about keeping more fossil fuels in the ground. The fact is, there’s no way to prevent global warming from reaching catastrophic levels if we burn up our remaining reserves of oil, gas, and coal.

Climate negotiators have agreed that warming should be limited to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial level. That means that humans can release about 1.1 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, and we’ve gone through about half of that already. The remaining emissions are known as our “carbon budget”; if we “spend” emissions beyond our budget, we’re much more likely to push the planet to dangerous levels of warming. If we burned through all of our current reserves of fossil fuels, we would overspend the budget by about threefold.

In other words, there are a lot of fossil fuels that are “unburnable” if we’re going to stay within the prescribed warming limit. But how much, exactly? And where exactly are those unburnable fuels? That’s the question asked in a study released today in the journal Nature by a team of energy analysts at University College London. The answer matters because mapping the geographical spread of unburnable fuels is a key step in understanding the roles specific regions need to play in the fight against climate change.

The model developed by Christophe McGlade and his team takes into account known estimates of fossil fuel reserves in a number of different countries and regions, as well as the global warming potential of those reserves and the market forces that determine which reserves are the most cost-effective to exploit. The results, shown below, are what the model finds to be the most cost-effective distribution that stays within the 3.6-degree limit.

The researchers ran the model twice: Once assuming widespread use of carbon capture and storage (an emerging technology for catching carbon emissions as they escape from power plants that is gaining steam but has yet to be proven on the global stage), and once assuming no CCS at all. The two scenarios ultimately aren’t that much different—using CCS won’t allow us to burn vastly more coal, oil, and gas. The results shown below are from the “with-CCS” scenario.

Tim McDonnell

A couple interesting things pop out. As you might expect, the vast majority of the world’s coal would need to stay buried. The United States is able to use most of its oil and gas in this scenario, because those resources are relatively cost-efficient to extract and bring to market compared to, for example, gas in China and India. In other words, according to this study, the US fracking boom can go forward full steam as long as the gas it produces aggressively replaces our coal consumption. But Canada can’t touch most of its oil, because the oil there—the kind that would be carried in the Keystone XL Pipeline—is exceptionally carbon-heavy tar sands crude.

What isn’t shown in the graphic above is that the model prohibits developing any of the vast oil and gas reserves in the Arctic. Melting sea ice has made those reserves increasingly attractive to energy companies like Shell.

Of course, the model has to make assumptions about future oil and gas prices that are basically impossible to be certain about. Unexpected changes to the price of oil, for example, could upset the cost equation for drilling in the US and re-shuffle the entire regional breakdown. But even as an estimate, the study really illuminates the vital need for policies all over the world that dramatically cut our dependence on coal.

Credit:  

Study: Fracking Good; Coal Bad

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study: Fracking Good; Coal Bad

These Charts Show How Ronald Reagan Actually Expanded the Federal Government

Mother Jones

One of the many, many problems Jeb Bush faces in his quest for the Oval Office is his break from Republican orthodoxy on president Ronald Reagan’s legacy. In 2012, Bush told a group of reporters that, in today’s GOP, Reagan “would be criticized for doing the things that he did”— namely, working with Democrats to pass legislation. He added that Reagan would struggle to secure the GOP nomination today.

Bush was lambasted by fellow conservatives for his comments, but he had a point: If you judge him by the uncompromising small government standards of today’s GOP, Reagan was a disaster. Here are a few charts that show why.

Under Reagan, the national debt almost tripled, from $907 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988:

Reagan ended his 1988 farewell speech with the memorable line, “man is not free unless government is limited.” The line is still a rallying cry for the right wing, but the speech came at the end of a long period of government expansion. Under Reagan, the federal workforce increased by about 324,000 to almost 5.3 million people. (The new hires weren’t just soldiers to fight the communists, either: uniformed military personnel only accounted for 26 percent of the increase.) In 2012, the federal government employed almost a million fewer people than it did in the last year of Reagan’s presidency.

Instead of praising Reagan’s small government philosophy, maybe Republicans should look to Bill Clinton’s action for guidance. By the end of Clinton’s second terms, the federal workforce was at its smallest size in decades.

Source – 

These Charts Show How Ronald Reagan Actually Expanded the Federal Government

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Charts Show How Ronald Reagan Actually Expanded the Federal Government