Tag Archives: consumption

Peter Navarro: Genius or Idiot? Or Neither?

Mother Jones

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

Tyler Cowen says that UCI professor Peter Navarro is “one of the most versatile and productive American economists of the last few decades.” Matt Yglesias says Navarro is an idiot. Who’s right?

I think there’s a category error here. Back in September, Navarro co-authored a paper about Donald Trump’s trade policy. Roughly speaking, Navarro relied on the following accounting identity:

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Trade Balance

So if our trade balance goes up from -$500 billion to $0, Navarro said, GDP will go up $500 billion and the government will collect a lot of extra taxes. Hooray! But as Yglesias points out, this is comic-book-level nonsense.1 Let me offer an analogy:

Corporate profits = Revenue + Investment Income – Labor Costs – Other Costs

So if I cut labor costs in half, corporate profits will go up. Right? I think you can see that this is unlikely. If you fired half your workers, you probably could no longer produce anything and your company would go bust. If you cut everyone’s wages in half, you’d suffer a steady exodus of your best people and probably end up far less profitable. If you replaced half your workers with machines, profits might indeed go up, but not by the amount of payroll you save. You’d have to account for the capital cost of the machines—which would probably reduce investment income—and the cost of maintenance—which would increase other costs. Bottom line: depending on how you do this, lots of different things could happen.

In the case of GDP, it’s true that everything in the formula has to add up, since this formula defines what GDP is. But if the trade balance goes up, there are several obvious possibilities. Consumption might go down. Investment might go down. Government spending might go down. In fact, once all the dust has settled, overall GDP might ultimately go down, stay the same, or go up. The real answer is that you’d need to model out an actual plan and figure out where it reaches equilibrium. Navarro knows this perfectly well.

So what is Navarro? Brilliant economist or idiot? Neither one. He’s someone who used to be a versatile and productive economist and is now a China-obsessed fanatic2 willing to say anything for the chance of a job in the Trump administration. He hasn’t lost 50 IQ points, he’s merely become so fixated on the dangers of Chinese trade that he no longer cares about economics. He cares only about saying things that might build support for his preferred policies, regardless of whether they’re true.

In other words, he’s now just another dime-a-dozen political hack. Trump will keep him around as long as his PhD is useful and then toss him aside.

1No offense meant to comic books.

2Three of his five most recent books are: The Coming China Wars, Death by China: Confronting the Dragon, and Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World.

This article:  

Peter Navarro: Genius or Idiot? Or Neither?

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Peter Navarro: Genius or Idiot? Or Neither?

This downer of a holiday keeps getting earlier every year

Congrats!

This downer of a holiday keeps getting earlier every year

By on Aug 8, 2016Share

When it comes to gobbling up natural resources, we humans are exceptionally gifted. Monday, August 8, is Earth Overshoot Day, a downer of a holiday that keeps creeping up earlier on our calendars, arriving five days earlier than last year.

The Global Footprint Network tracks the point in the year when we’ve used more of the important stuff that sustains life — you know, water, trees, fish — than nature’s ability to regenerate those resources.

And we’ve still got 145 days left to go.

Here’s how our collective footprint (red line) compares to Earth’s ability to cope with that demand (green line) over the past half century.

Global Footprint Network

We started overshooting our budget in 1971, and we’ve widened the deficit ever since. Give yourselves a pat on the back, humanity!

Check out Grist’s video on Earth Overshoot Day last year, which explains consumption habits in terms you can understand — caffeine addiction.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Original article:  

This downer of a holiday keeps getting earlier every year

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This downer of a holiday keeps getting earlier every year

How ‘Green’ is Your State?

How green is your state?

To find out, surf on over to WalletHub.com and check out their 2016 analysis. The group compared all 50 states in terms of 17 key metrics that look at the health of the current environment as well as the environmental impact of people’s daily habits.

They grouped the metrics into three specific categories:

Environmental Quality: Researchers took stock of how muchsolid waste was generated per capita as well as the quality of the air, soil and water.

Eco-Friendly Behaviors: WalletHub measured the number of LEED-certified green buildings per capita, as well as the state’s transportation infrastructure and number of alternatively-fueled vehicles, as well as consumption of energy, gasoline and water.

Climate Change Contributions: This category focused on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per capita, along withemissions of other greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated greenhouse gases.

The research team then cruncheddata from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, American Chemistry Council, County Health Rankings, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the U.S. Green Buildings Council, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey and the World Resources Institute.

Their findings?

The ten greenest states were primarily in the Northeast, with the exception of one midwestern outlier and two states in the Pacific Northwest. Interestingly, California did not make the top ten greenest states list, coming in at number 12. On the other end of the spectrum, you might have expected a state like Texas to be the least green, but it was ranked #36in the lower half of the country, definitely, but not the worst.

Greenest States

Vermont (greenest overall)
Washington
Massachusetts
Oregon
Minnesota
Maine
Connecticut
New York
New Hampshire
New Jersey

Least Green States

Idaho
Arkansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Nebraska
West Virginia
Montana
North Dakota
Wyoming (least green overall)

Perhaps not surprisingly, states considered politically “blue” are almost three times more environmentally responsible than red states.

Citizens of Missouri throw away the least amount of trash while Hawaii citizens throw away the most! And Maine recycles the most at 48 percent while Louisiana recycles only 1 percent, the least.

What value is this if you’re trying to improve the environmental quality of your own state? You can use WalletHub’s approachto compare counties in your own state and identify opportunities for improvement. (Cities might be too difficult to compare because they share so many county services, whereas county services do vary quite a bit.)

Of the 17 metrics WalletHub used, these five might be a good starting point for more specific analysis in your state:

Municipal Solid Waste: How much trash are citizens in each of your state’s counties throwing away? What enables people in a particular county to throw away less trash and recycle more? Are there plastic bag fees that encourage people to take reusable bags to the grocery store? Do curbside recycling programs make it easier for citizens to divert trash from the landfill? Have bans been put in place to prohibit use of polystyrene foam at fast food restaurants?

Gasoline Consumption: The amount of gas citizens use may vary widely from county to county. In WalletHub’s study, people living in New York consumed the least amount of gas of any state, which should be no surprise, given how densely people in the 5 boroughs of New York City live and how comprehensive the mass transit system is there. On the other hand, people in North Dakota consumed the most gasoline per capita, a reflection of the long distances folks drive from one part of the state to the next. Comparisons may be similar in rural vs urban counties in one state.

Energy Consumption: This comparison could be highly informative and might indicate the level of awareness people have one county to another when it comes to using electricity and natural gas. For example, some electric utilities might be particularly aggressive in educating consumers about the importance of energy conservation. The utility might also offer a package of incentives to get its customers to replace energy-wasting appliances with newer models. Knowing what strategies encourage residents of one county to save energy could be very valuable to managers of other counties as they strive to cut energy consumption and the carbon dioxide emissions that go along with it.

Water Consumption: The WalletHub analysis examined water quality, not consumption. But like energy consumption, analyzing the amount of water consumed in some counties compared to others in the same state could provide valuable insights into how to motivate people statewide to use water more wisely.

Number of LEED-Certified Buildings: Any time a new building is built, it should be able to meet at least the basic criteria for saving energy as established by the U.S. Green Building Council. Once a tally is made of all LEED-Certified buildings in a county, counties could start a friendly competition to see which ones build the most new LEED buildings over a certain period of time.

If these categories don’t correspond to the most pressing environmental challenges your state faces,choose some other categoriesthat are more relevant.The key is to use comparisons both to take stock of where things stand, and to use those comparisons to make things better. The comparisons will create useful benchmarks to measure its own progress over time, making both the planet and the people happier and healthier.

Related
6 Urban Green Space Projects That Are Revitalizing U.S. Cities
10 Greenest Cities in North America

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

Original post:

How ‘Green’ is Your State?

Posted in alo, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How ‘Green’ is Your State?

Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility?

In an era of rising transparency and concerns about corporate ethics, companies eager to please millennials appear to be shifting business models and messages. This article is from:  Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility? ; ; ;

Source article: 

Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility?

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: With Imposed Transparency and Concerned Millennials, a Boom in Corporate Responsibility?

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

green4us

Will the Paris Agreement be enough? There’s a deal. lexaarts/Shutterstock; NASA; Photo illustration by James West There was relief and celebration in Paris Saturday evening, as officials from more than 190 countries swept aside monumental differences and agreed to an unprecedented global deal to tackle climate change. The historic accord, known as the Paris Agreement, includes emissions-slashing commitments from individual countries and promises to help poorer nations adapt to the damaging effects of a warming world. Negotiators also agreed on measures to revise, strengthen, and scrutinize countries’ contributions going forward. However, the deal leaves some key decisions to the future, and it is widely recognized as not representing an ultimate solution to climate change. Instead, it sets out the rules of the road for the next 10 to 15 years and establishes an unprecedented international legal basis for addressing climate issues. Within the agreement, nearly every country on Earth laid out its own plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change impacts. Although those individual plans are not legally binding, the core agreement itself is. The deal sets a long-term goal of keeping the increase in the global temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels and calls on countries to “pursue efforts” to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees C. It adds that “parties aim to reach a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who has served as chair of the two-week summit, said the deal is the most ambitious step ever taken by the international community to confront climate change. In announcing the deal, President Barack Obama clinched a major foreign policy success years in the making and secured long-term action on climate change as a core part of his legacy, despite extraordinary opposition at home from the Republican majority in Congress. During the second week of the talks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry was a driving force, delivering several high-profile speeches in which he sought to cast the US as a leader on climate action. For Kerry, who has been a prominent voice in climate summits for two decades, it was essential to craft a deal the US could agree to and not to return home empty-handed. The deal signals that world leaders are now committed to responding to the dire scientific warnings about the impacts of warming. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and other human activities are threatening to usher in an era of rising sea levels, sinking islands, scorching heat waves, devastating droughts, mass human migration, and destruction of ecosystems. Among the deal’s biggest successes is a commitment to produce a global review of climate progress by 2018 and to bring countries back to the negotiating table by 2020 to present climate targets that “will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then-current” target. In other words, countries are committed to ramping up their ambition in the short term. This was an essential item for many people here, since the current raft of targets only keeps global warming to 2.7 degrees C, not 1.5. The deal also promises to hold every country accountable to the same standard of transparency in measuring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions; this was a provision that the US had pushed hard for in order to ensure that other big polluters such as China and India abide by their promises. “Countries have united around a historic agreement that marks a turning point in the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Morgan, global director of the climate program at the World Resources Institute. “This is a transformational long-term goal that should really send clear signals into the markets” about the imminent decline of fossil fuel consumption. The deal is expected to be a boon for the clean energy industry, as developing and developed countries alike increase their investments in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. Early in the talks, a high-profile group of billionaire investors, including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, promised to pour money into clean energy research, and a critical component of the agreement is a commitment for developed countries to transfer clean technologies to developing countries. “If we needed an economic signal from this agreement, I think this is rather remarkable,” said Michael Jacobs, a senior advisor at New Climate Economy. Still, parts of the deal left some environmental groups unsatisfied, particularly with respect to financing for clean energy technology and climate change adaptation. The deal requires all developed countries to “provide financial assistance to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.” Although the deal sets a floor of $100 billion for that assistance and calls for that number to be raised by 2025, it doesn’t specify a new higher target and does not commit any country, including the US, to any particular share of that. The deal also specifies that nothing in it can be construed as holding countries with the biggest historical contribution to climate change—most importantly the US—legally or financially liable for climate change-related damages in vulnerable countries. And it provides no specific timeline for peaking and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions; according to some scientists, that will need to happen within the next few decades for the 1.5 degrees C target to be achievable. “There’s not enough in this deal for the nations and people on the frontlines of climate change,” said Kumi Naidoo, international executive director of Greenpeace, in a statement. “It contains an inherent, ingrained injustice. The nations which caused this problem have promised too little help to the people who are already losing their lives and livelihoods.” The task of delegates at Le Bourget, a converted airport north of Paris, over the past two weeks was substantial. After all, more than two decades of UN-led climate talks had failed to produce a global deal to limit greenhouse gases. The Copenhagen talks in 2009 collapsed because officials couldn’t agree on how to level the playing field between rich and poor countries, sending negotiations into a morass of recriminations. Before that, the Kyoto protocol in 1997 also failed—the US and China didn’t ratify it, and it only covered about 14 percent of global carbon emissions. This year’s negotiations, the 21st in the series of UN climate talks, had to be different. One of the major reasons negotiators were able to reach a deal was that much of the work had been done in advance. By the time Paris rolled around, more than 150 countries had promised to change the way they use energy, detailing those changes in the form of individual commitments. Known as INDCs, these pledges formed the basis of Saturday’s deal. Of course, the INDCs won’t be legally binding, and even if most countries do manage to live up to their promises, they aren’t yet ambitious enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. The latest estimate is that the INDCs will limit global warming to about 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts of global warming—and far above the 1.5 degrees Celsius target that negotiators in Paris agreed to aim for. But it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would happen if the world continued on its present course. The Paris summit began as the largest meeting of government leaders in history (outside the UN building in New York) just two weeks after ISIS-affiliated terrorists killed 130 people across the city. While French officials immediately promised the talks would continue, they soon banned long-planned, massive climate protests, citing security concerns. That decision set the stage for several skirmishes between police and protesters, who remained committed to disrupting the talks in order to highlight issues such as sponsorship from big oil companies and the plight of poorer countries. At one protest, an estimated 10,000 people formed a human chain in the Place de la République, the site of a spontaneous memorial to the victims of the Paris attacks. There were scores of arrests. But the climate talks themselves went ahead as planned. Some 40,000 heads of state, diplomats, scientists, activists, policy experts, and journalists descended on the French capital for the event. Perhaps the biggest factor driving the negotiators’ unprecedented optimism was the fact that the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, and the world’s two biggest economies—the US and China—had made a public show of working together to get an agreement. A landmark climate deal between the two countries in November 2014 built critical momentum. China later promised to create a national cap-and-trade program to augment a suite of emissions-control policies. The Obama administration, meanwhile, pushed through its Clean Power Plan regulations, despite aggressive resistance from Republicans. Still, as the talks neared their conclusion on Friday, tensions were rising between the so-called “High Ambition Coalition”—a negotiating bloc including the US, European Union, and dozens of developing countries—and China and India. Nevertheless, a rare alliance between world leaders ultimately prevailed: Pope Francis, for one, campaigned tirelessly for a climate deal ahead of the talks, decrying the “unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.” All of this cleared the way for large groups of developed and developing countries to cooperate at the talks. Bigger countries appeared ready to work with the 43-country-strong negotiating bloc of highly vulnerable developing nations. Recent changes of leadership in Canada and Australia, notable adversaries of climate action in recent years, switched these mid-sized players into fans of a deal before the talks. Even Russia’s Vladimir Putin seemed to have an eleventh hour change of heart—or, at least, of rhetoric—and called for action.

Read original article: 

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Related Posts

Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming
2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change
The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts
Leave Fossil Fuels Buried to Prevent Climate Change, Study Urges
Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year? Here’s Why It Doesn’t Matter.
Will the Planet Survive the Next 24 Hours?

Share this:






Link: 

World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming

5 Big Developments From the Beginning of the Paris Climate Summit

green4us

After just a few days, billions of dollars have been committed to clean energy. Yann Caradec/Flickr On Tuesday, more than 100 heads of state departed from Paris, after kicking off two weeks of international negotiations intended to limit climate change. But even though the biggest names have left the building (actually a converted regional airport), the real action is just getting started. If history is any guide, diplomats will be holed up in a room negotiating minute textual details until—or well past—the last possible minute next Friday. Still, the last few days have seen a barrage of developments that aren’t necessarily tied to the core negotiating text. It started on Sunday with a joint commitment from dozens of nations and private corporations to vastly increase their spending on clean energy research and development. Here are a few more key developments, in no particular order: 1. New milestone for fossil fuel divestment: Some of the most prominent activist groups at the summit are focusing their attention on divestment—that is, getting high-profile individuals and institutions to pull their money out of fossil fuel companies. In September, that campaign reached a high-water mark, when a study commissioned by a coalition of environmental groups found that hundreds of institutions and thousands of individuals with assets totaling $2.6 trillion had pledged to divest from fossil fuels. Bear in mind, the actual amount of money being pulled out of fossil fuel companies is substantially smaller than that. But it’s nevertheless a pretty impressive number because of the growing movement it represents. On Wednesday, the same coalition updated that figure: It now tops $3.4 trillion. Again, it’s unclear how much of this is actually being divested. (It’s not always easy for a complex institution such as a university to know how much money, if any, it actually has invested in a given industry). But it’s striking that the total jumped nearly $1 trillion in just a couple of months. The African Development Bank promised to pour $12 billion into increasing access to electricity. 2. Big boost to clean energy in Africa: Sub-Saharan Africa has one of the world’s lowest rates of access to electricity; nearly two-thirds of people there live without power. That makes it hard to grow a business, hard for kids to study, and hard to store fresh food and medical supplies. As we’ve reported before, it also represents a huge opportunity for renewable energy. Small-scale wind and solar projects, while not up to the task of fully supplying the continent’s electricity needs, can often be deployed more rapidly than big fossil-fuel-fired power plants. On Tuesday, the African Development Bank announced that it would pour $12 billion into energy projects over the next five years and seek to attract up to $50 billion in parallel private-sector funding. The project has two goals: to vastly expand basic energy access, and to do so cleanly, by boosting the continent’s renewable energy capacity tenfold. This is just the latest sign that the clean energy industry is likely to be one of the biggest winners from the Paris climate talks. 3. China is playing ball: President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping set the joint climate action ball rolling more than a year ago, when they announced a sweeping plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions and pool resources on clean energy. Since then, China and the United States—the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 carbon polluters, respectively—have stayed close on their climate agendas. That trend appears to be continuing in Paris, a rare point of diplomatic accord in an otherwise testy relationship. China has said it could agree to reevaluating its climate goals every five years, a protocol that the United States, the European Union, and other leading emitters are pushing strongly to include in the final agreement. On Wednesday, Chinese officials back in Beijing also announced deep new targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. India has also rolled out a new $30 million plan to invest in clean energy, although that country remains opposed to the five-year review standard. Russia, meanwhile, doesn’t appear interested in doing much at all. Tensions between the United States, China, India, Russia, Canada, Brazil, and other heavyweights—not to mention small island nations and other highly vulnerable players—are likely to become more apparent as the talks progress into finer minutiae. 4. Who’s going to pay for all this? One of the most contentious issues in Paris is climate finance, a term that refers broadly to cash ponied up by wealthy, high-polluting nations such as the United States to help poorer countries adapt to climate change impacts and reduce their carbon emissions. In 2009, at the last major climate summit, developed countries agreed to raise $100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020. That goal is about halfway met, according to the World Resources Institute. On Tuesday, Obama announced an additional $30 million from the United States for climate adaptation in the most vulnerable countries, on top of a $3 billion promise the United States made to the UN Green Climate Fund last year. But it’s unclear how the Paris agreement will ensure that this fundraising continues. Delegates will have to hash out what sorts of commitments can or should be legally binding, how to count the money, how to spend it, and other important considerations. Jake Schmidt, an international programs director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said many developing countries are pushing to include language in the agreement that would require the total level of finance to be gradually ramped up over time. “I don’t think anyone is envisioning there will be a new [specific] number, but rather asking that $100 billion is a floor to the finance that will be mobilized over time,” he said. The same is true of countries’ various greenhouse gas reduction targets, he said: A big question at the talks is how these commitments can be enforced and strengthened past the next decade or two. “We’re leaving Paris with a sense that it could be 10 or 15 years before we return to these targets,” he said. “If we don’t have another moment to reevaluate these, then we have a problem.” 5. Cities are playing a big role: National governments aren’t the only players in Paris. Cities and states are also offering their own commitments. One of the most prominent voices at the summit so far has been that of California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), who is pushing a group of 60 states and cities around the world to sign on to a sub-national climate agreement. Meanwhile, on Tuesday a group of 21 mayors committed to dedicating 10 percent of their municipal budgets to climate “resilience,” which includes steps like making infrastructure more weatherproof and restricting energy consumption by buildings. They include the mayors of Paris, New Orleans, Oakland, Rio de Janeiro, and other global cities.

See the original post: 

5 Big Developments From the Beginning of the Paris Climate Summit

Related Posts

Stanford Professors Urge Withdrawal From Fossil Fuel Investments
Leave Fossil Fuels Buried to Prevent Climate Change, Study Urges
A Massive Climate Summit Is About to Happen in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.
A Massive Climate Summit Just Started in Paris. Here’s What You Need to Know.
Obama on Climate Change: “No Challenge Poses a Greater Threat to Future Generations”
National Briefing | Religion: Church Dropping Fossil Fuel Investments

Share this:






Continue reading here:

5 Big Developments From the Beginning of the Paris Climate Summit

Posted in alo, ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Big Developments From the Beginning of the Paris Climate Summit

Shock Top Brewing wants you to drop a brick (in your toilet)

This beer company wants to drop bricks in toilets across California, help fund new water-saving inventions, and share practical tips for helping to conserve water. View the original here –  Shock Top Brewing wants you to drop a brick (in your toilet) ; ; ;

Taken from – 

Shock Top Brewing wants you to drop a brick (in your toilet)

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shock Top Brewing wants you to drop a brick (in your toilet)

How Conservation and Groundwater Management Can Gird California for a Drier Era

Experts see a mix of conservation and groundwater management as the cheapest way for Californians to grapple with deepening drought. Visit site –  How Conservation and Groundwater Management Can Gird California for a Drier Era ; ;Related ArticlesU.S. Coal Exports Eroding Domestic Greenhouse GainsCan Scientific Advice on Coastal Risk Reduction Compete with ‘We Will Not Retreat’ Politics?Fresh Focus on Siberian Permafrost as Second Hole is Reported ;

Continued here:

How Conservation and Groundwater Management Can Gird California for a Drier Era

Posted in alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Conservation and Groundwater Management Can Gird California for a Drier Era

Technology as a Path to Product Transparency

A look at online portals that can offer consumers a view of the labor and environmental conditions behind the products on store shelves. Jump to original: Technology as a Path to Product Transparency Related ArticlesThe Agriculture Secretary Sees a Smart (Phone) Solution to GMO Labeling FightThese Maps Show How Many Brutally Hot Days You Will Suffer When You’re OldTwo Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the Anthropocene

Link:  

Technology as a Path to Product Transparency

Posted in alternative energy, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Technology as a Path to Product Transparency

A Gift That Keeps on Giving – to Strumming Musicians

A simple device turns old credit cards and other stray plastic into guitar picks. Continued here:  A Gift That Keeps on Giving – to Strumming Musicians ; ;Related ArticlesClimate Scientists, Then and Now, Espousing ‘Responsible Advocacy’A Glitter-Covered Banner Got These Protesters Arrested for Staging a Bioterror HoaxReflections on the Killing of Chico Mendes 25 Years Ago ;

See original article: 

A Gift That Keeps on Giving – to Strumming Musicians

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Gift That Keeps on Giving – to Strumming Musicians