Tag Archives: Direct

Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

By on May 13, 2016 6:00 amShare

Podcasts are cool. Government agencies, generally speaking, are not. What happens when you mix the two together?

Judging by Episode 1 of the Department of Energy’s new podcast, Direct Current, the result is surprisingly charming — and not at all like listening to an audio version of the congressional yawn that is C-SPAN.

The episode (listen above) dives into rooftop solar and problems that arise after people install rooftop panels. It contains moments of levity, too, like a spoof of a familiar public radio show (with host “Ira Fiberglass” hosting This American Lightbulb), and an off-the-wall story about Don Quixote discovering a windmill and mistaking it for a giant.

The Verge described this podcast as coming “from out of nowhere” — and granted, when you think of up-and-coming podcast creators, the Department of Energy isn’t a prime suspect. But maybe we shouldn’t be totally surprised that in the post-Serial world, a decade after podcasts became popular, the government is finally catching up. The Department of Energy’s podcast represents a government agency’s attempt to venture outside its jargon-laden domain into a more approachable realm, one in which actual human beings live, listen, and learn.

In the era of thumb-scrolling through Facebook, podcasts are seen as a return to intimacy: a more theatrical medium that allows listeners to engage more slowly and deeply with what’s being said. Any subject is fair game, from concrete to rhino hunters. And now, courtesy of the government, rooftop solar panels.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View this article: 

Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

What Does "Cage-Free" Even Mean?

Mother Jones

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

What kind of farm do you imagine when you think of organic or cage-free eggs? Images of hens frolicking in lush meadows?

That kind of farming exists, but such conditions aren’t mandated by organic code—not explicitly anyway. According to the USDA regulations, animals raised organically have “year-round access … to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight, suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate, and the environment.” Those rules are open to a wide variety of interpretations.,

Ten times over the course of a year and a half, under cover of night,a group of radical animal-rights activists snuck into the facilities of a large operation called Petaluma Farms, a major west-coast major supplier to Whole Foods and Organic Valley, according to The New York Times. The Petaluma egg complex produces both certified-organic and non-organic “cage free” eggs, the main difference between the two standards being that organic eggs must come from hens fed only organic feed.

The group, Direct Action Everywhere, seems to find all animal farming abhorrent—a point driven home in the video’s first third, wherein several group members denounce the killing of animals. Later, footage taken from within the Petaluma facilities shows lots of birds wallowing tightly together, often amidst what looks like significant buildup of their own waste. The narrators use words like “stench, ” “filth,” and “misery” to describe the scene; and show several birds in obvious bad health—birds with blisters, missing feathers, one clearly caked with shit—along with birds that appear to be in decent shape. The crew dramatically rescues one pathetically injured bird, handing her over the fence, one activist to another, and whisking her to a vet in Berkeley, who declares her in dismal shape.

In a media statement, Petaluma owners Judy and Steve Mahrt wrote that “The video in no way reflects our practices or the overall health of our flocks.” As for outside access, the statement adds the company maintains “sun porches for outdoor access while protecting from predators and disease.” All the filming in the video akes place at night, when most domesticated chickens go inside, anyway. So the video doesn’t tell us anything about the birds’ outdoor access.

Pressed for details, the company referred me to the below video. At about the 2:38 mark, there’s a depiction of one such sun porch—it’s a raised, triangular space jutting off the side of the building, made of chicken wire. By the company’s own admission, then, the birds never touch the ground outside—their “outdoor access” seems to conform to the letter of organic code, if not the spirit of organic farming conjured in the heads of consumers.

This is not Petaluma’s first PR problem. Michael Pollan famously used it as an example of industrial-organic farming in Omnivore’s Dilemma, observing that its meat-poultry buildings “don’t resemble a farm so much as a barracks,” and that the birds were conditioned to never make use of their access to outdoors. As for the company’s egg operation, Judy’s Family Farm, Pollan never got a look: “The company was too concerned about biosecurity to let a visitor get past the office.”

Last year, Petaluma settled a lawsuit brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund over the depiction of the lives of its hens on its packaging. As part of the agreement, in which Petaluma did not admit to wrongdoing, the company agreed to modify its egg cartons “by removing the illustration of hens on a green field and removing the language that Plaintiff alleged could lead consumers to mistakenly believe the eggs come from hens with significant outdoor access.” Previously, the inside of the cartons claimed that “these hens are raised in wide-open spaces in Sonoma Valley, where they are free to roam, scratch, and play.”

A “sun porch” at a Petaluma Farms facility—the “access to outdoors” required by organic code. Screenshot from the video, above, provided by Petaluma Farms

So what’s to be taken away from the Direct Action Everywhere video? I see it as an important but problematic look behind the veil of what Pollan has deemed “supermarket pastoral”—the gauze of marketing that cloaks the often-harsh realities of large-scale organic farming.

Yet compared to the vast Iowa facilities that triggered a half-billion-egg salmonella recall in 2010 (the Food and Drug Administration’s stomach-turning post-outbreak inspection report can be found here), the Petaluma houses captured on tape by Direct Action Everywhere actually look pretty good. When you confine thousands of birds into a building and manage several buildings, problems like the ones caught on take by DAE are going to arise. I’d feel better about Petaluma if it represented standard practice for industrial egg production, and not the rarefied status implied by organic certification.

See the article here:  

What Does "Cage-Free" Even Mean?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Organic Valley, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Does "Cage-Free" Even Mean?

Australia repeals carbon tax, scientists freak out

crikey

Australia repeals carbon tax, scientists freak out

Shutterstock

The cartoonish stereotype of Australia of yesteryear featured a rough-headed bloke in an Akubra hat wrangling crocodiles. That image has finally been scrubbed from our collective memories – only to be replaced with something worse. Today, when we read news dispatches from Australia, we’re seeing a dunderheaded prime minister cartoonishly wrangling commonsense, becoming the first leader in the warming world to repeal a price on carbon.

It’s like George W. Bush, Crocodile Dundee-style.

Conservative prime minister, climate change denier, and accused misogynist Tony Abbott was elected in September. He started working as the nation’s leader almost immediately, but he had to wait until this month for newly elected senators to take their seats. Abbott’s (conservative) Liberal party still doesn’t control the Senate, but it has found Senate allies in a powerful party that was founded just last year by kooky mining magnate Clive Palmer. Palmer held a press conference with Al Gore last month to announce that he opposed some of Abbott’s climate-wrecking policies, and that he wanted a carbon-trading program to replace the carbon tax. That now seems to have been smokestacks and mirrors. When it came to repealing Australia’s $US23.50 per metric ton carbon tax, the immodestly named Palmer United Party fell into line on Thursday, helping the repeal pass the Senate by a vote of 39 to 32, without demanding the establishment of any alternative.

The vote came just days after new modeling and research revealed that climate change is worsening drought conditions in Australia. Apparently, the drought is also of the intellectual variety.

Abbott has proposed replacing the carbon tax with something he calls Direct Action. That would involve handing out billions of dollars to corporations to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But Direct Action has not been passed by the Senate, and it might never be passed, meaning that one of the worst per-person climate-polluting countries now has no overarching strategy for reducing that pollution.

“Today’s repeal of laws that price and limit carbon pollution is an historic act of irresponsibility and recklessness,” said John Connor, CEO of The Climate Institute. “Today we lose a credible framework of limiting pollution that was a firm foundation for a fair dinkum Australian contribution to global climate efforts.”

We could bore you with visceral reactions from politicians Down Under. Instead, here are some reactions to the repeal from Australian scientists and academic analysts:

Roger Jones, Victoria University: “It’s hard to imagine a more effective combination of poor reasoning and bad policy making. The perfect storm of stupidity. Bad economics and mistrust of market forces.”

Hugh Outhred, University of New South Wales: “With climate change already underway, repeal of the carbon tax represents dereliction of duty with respect to the rights of young people and future generations. The coalition plan to replace a ‘polluter pays’ policy with a ‘pay the polluter’ policy will exacerbate the budget imbalance while being simply inadequate to the task.”

Roger Dargaville, University of Melbourne: “The Government’s replacement strategy, Direct Action, will fail to reduce emissions as it fails to penalise the largest emitters. Also, Direct Action risks not gaining approval in the Senate as it is unlikely to get the support of [Palmer United Party] Senators. The repeal of the price on carbon is a backwards step and a sad day for the global climate.”

Jemma Green, Curtin University: “Without a domestic emissions trading scheme, Australia will probably use international offsetting to meet its commitments. The Renewable Energy Target and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will play some role in retooling for the low-carbon economy, but other new policies may be required to fully address this need.”

Peter Rayner, University of Melbourne: “I’m a carbon cycle scientist, my job is to monitor, understand and predict the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As an Australian, I’m proud of how much we have contributed to that understanding, but today I’m embarrassed by how poor we are at putting that understanding into practice.”

Correction: This post originally stated that The Climate Institute was a former Australian government agency that morphed into a nonprofit after Abbott took power, but in fact it has always been a nonprofit.


Source
Carbon tax is gone: Repeal bills pass the Senate, Sydney Morning Herald
Expert reaction: Carbon tax repealed, Australian Science Media Center
Carbon tax repealed: experts respond, The Conversation
Clive Palmer’s changes may doom proposed emissions trading scheme, The Guardian
Australia lurches backwards as pollution is free again, The Climate Institute
New NOAA climate model shows Australia’s long-term rainfall decline due to human-caused climate change, NOAA

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

See the article here:  

Australia repeals carbon tax, scientists freak out

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Australia repeals carbon tax, scientists freak out

This Is an Actual Photo of a Planet in Another Solar System

The little blue splotch is the planet HD95086 b. It’s about four or five times the mass of Jupiter and it orbits a star 300 light years away. The planet’s star doesn’t actually look like a clip art star–the astronomers had to cover the star so they could see the comparatively faint planet. Photo: European Southern Observatory

See that little blue smudge? That’s another planet.

It’s named HD95086 b, and it’s orbiting a star 300light years away. This is one of the first times in human history that we’ve ever laid eyes on a planet in another solar system, a planet that isn’t orbiting the Sun.

Thanks to the Kepler telescope we know that thousands, perhaps billions of planets exist out there in the universe. But we haven’t actually seen very many of themKepler found planets by looking for the absence of starlight—it registered a planet’s presence when the light from a star dipped, as a planet passed in front. Other techniques let astronomers measure the presence of a planet by calculating how the star wobbles because of the gravitational pull of the orbiting planet. But this is different. The photo above is of a planet in a different solar system as seen through a telescope.

It’s really, really hard to see planets like this one directly. You need a big, advanced telescope. To see HD95086 b, astronomers with the European Southern Observatory used the Very Large Telescope. (Yes, that’s its real name.) The movement of the atmosphere, which a telescope on the ground needs to look through, can perturb the view. The Very Large Telescope is equipped with adaptive optics, a way for the instruments to account for the atmospheric distortion and clean up the image. The astronomers also used a technique to bump up the contrast so that they could see the faint planet.

According to Elizabeth Howell for Universe Today, the new planet is around four or five times as big as Jupiter and orbits its star at a distance about twice the distance between the Sun and Neptune. The star itself, says Howell, is a “baby” compared to the Sun: it’s just 17 million years old, compared to our star’s 4.5 billion years.

More from Smithsonian.com:

So Long, Kepler: NASA’s Crack Exoplanet-Hunter Falls to Mechanical Failure
17 Billion Earth-Size Planets! An Astronomer Reflects on the Possibility of Alien Life

Taken from:  

This Is an Actual Photo of a Planet in Another Solar System

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is an Actual Photo of a Planet in Another Solar System

Sewell Direct Linkable Color Changing LED RGB Ball String Christmas Xmas Lights Belt Light

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Sewell Direct | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sewell Direct Linkable Color Changing LED RGB Ball String Christmas Xmas Lights Belt Light