Tag Archives: earth

World Briefing: Chile: Patagonia Dams Rejected

A government commission rejected an $8 billion proposal to dam Patagonian rivers to meet growing energy demands, handing a victory to environmentalists who praised the ruling on Tuesday. Continue reading: World Briefing: Chile: Patagonia Dams Rejected Related ArticlesFuture Fossils: Plastic StoneBattle Over Fracking Poses Threat to Colorado DemocratsOff the Shelf: Review of Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper

Link: 

World Briefing: Chile: Patagonia Dams Rejected

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on World Briefing: Chile: Patagonia Dams Rejected

In Some States, Emissions Cuts Defy Skeptics

At least 10 states have already met President Obama’s goal of a 30 percent reduction in power plant emissions by 2030, without the economic damage that critics have warned would occur. Original link: In Some States, Emissions Cuts Defy Skeptics ; ;Related ArticlesNews Analysis: The Potential Downside of Natural GasGermany Leans Toward Lifting Ban on FrackingDot Earth Blog: Behind the Mask – A Reality Check on China’s Plans for a Carbon Cap ;

See the article here – 

In Some States, Emissions Cuts Defy Skeptics

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In Some States, Emissions Cuts Defy Skeptics

Roundup: Can New E.P.A. CO2 Rules Have a Climate Impact?

If implemented, will the proposed E.P.A. regulations on power plant carbon pollution matter to the global climate? See the original post:   Roundup: Can New E.P.A. CO2 Rules Have a Climate Impact? ; ;Related ArticlesBehind the Mask – A Reality Check on China’s Plans for a Carbon CapDot Earth Blog: Behind the Mask – A Reality Check on China’s Plans for a Carbon CapTwitter Chat About New E.P.A. Carbon Pollution Regulations ;

Link to original:  

Roundup: Can New E.P.A. CO2 Rules Have a Climate Impact?

Posted in alternative energy, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Roundup: Can New E.P.A. CO2 Rules Have a Climate Impact?

Germany Leans Toward Lifting Ban on Fracking

Pressure has increased to end the country’s reliance on Russia for natural gas and to find new fuel sources. View original post here: Germany Leans Toward Lifting Ban on Fracking Related ArticlesDot Earth Blog: Behind the Mask – A Reality Check on China’s Plans for a Carbon CapNews Analysis: The Potential Downside of Natural GasEconomic Scene: A Paltry Start in Curbing Global Warming

Continue reading here: 

Germany Leans Toward Lifting Ban on Fracking

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Germany Leans Toward Lifting Ban on Fracking

The Potential Downside of Natural Gas

President Obama’s climate plan relies on natural gas’s ability to drive down emissions, but it’s unclear whether its net effect helps in the long term. This article is from: The Potential Downside of Natural Gas Related ArticlesDot Earth Blog: Tracking Obama’s Climate Rules for Power PlantsNews Analysis: Trying to Reclaim Leadership on Climate ChangeObama to Take Action to Cut Carbon Pollution

View original post here: 

The Potential Downside of Natural Gas

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Potential Downside of Natural Gas

Obama to Take Action to Cut Carbon Pollution

Experts say the new regulation could close hundreds of the nation’s coal-fired power plants and lead to changes in the U.S. electricity industry. More:   Obama to Take Action to Cut Carbon Pollution ; ;Related ArticlesDot Earth Blog: White House Stresses Widespread Energy Progress Ahead of New Climate RuleDot Earth Blog: Tracking Obama’s Climate Rules for Power PlantsObama to Take Action to Slash Coal Pollution ;

Original article: 

Obama to Take Action to Cut Carbon Pollution

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama to Take Action to Cut Carbon Pollution

Wait, So the New "Transformers" Movie Is a Pro-Immigration Allegory?

Mother Jones

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

Michael Bay‘s big, loud action movies sometimes have plot elements resembling political messages. The Rock (1996) depicts the blowback from illegal American covert operations overseas. In Armageddon (1998), the NASA-recruited team of deep-core drillers agree to embark on a dangerous mission to save the planet from an asteroid—on the condition that they never have to pay taxes again. In Bad Boys II (2003), the film’s heroes illegally invade (and destroy large chunks of) Cuba, all in the name of fighting the drug war.

But could the 49-year-old director’s latest film, Transformers: Age of Extinction (in theaters June 27), actually be an allegory for the plight of undocumented immigrants in modern-day USA? Well, the film is currently being marketed that way. As flagged by Entertainment Weekly earlier this week, the Paramount Pictures-associated website TransformersAreDangerous.com documents the (obviously purely fictional) rise of anti-Transformer sentiment in America. In the previous Transformers film, some of these alien robots killed a bunch of people and blew up a lot of stuff in Chicago, so the advent of a “KEEP EARTH HUMAN” movement isn’t exactly stunning.

Much of the anti-Transformer/pro-human propaganda certainly resembles what you might expect from anti-immigration hardliners. Here are a couple posters from the website:

Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

And here’s a fake PSA on the “fall of Chicago”:

So will this dose of mindless, robots-battling-robots summer fun also double as Michael Bay’s impassioned cry for immigration reform? Dunno. We’ll have to wait until the end of June to find out. In the meantime, here’s a trailer for the upcoming Transformers flick:

Source article: 

Wait, So the New "Transformers" Movie Is a Pro-Immigration Allegory?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wait, So the New "Transformers" Movie Is a Pro-Immigration Allegory?

"Cosmos" Explains How Global Warming Threatens Civilization as We Know It

Mother Jones

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

So now Cosmos has really done it.

The show had already enraged climate deniers by explaining just how big a problem global warming is. But clearly, it wasn’t done. On the latest episode, entitled “The Immortals,” host Neil deGrasse Tyson explores a grandiose theme if ever there was one: What it would take for our species to get off-world, as well as whether we’ll ever be able to successfully contact alien life. Both are, in effect, chances at immortality, since either our species—or at least the information we create and transmit into space—would thereby live on, perhaps even beyond the death of our sun.

But guess what: Both forms of immortality, according to the show, are threatened by factors that can disrupt the stability and the longevity of human civilization—and that includes human-caused climate change.

To understand how that could be so, you need to first understand something that loomed very large in the thoughts of Tyson’s predecessor, Carl Sagan, and that underlies this latest Cosmos episode: The Drake Equation. Derived by the astrophysicist Frank Drake, the equation is basically a formula for trying to determine how many technologically advanced civilizations there might be in the Milky Way galaxy, and how likely it is that our own civilization would be able to contact them. It looks like this (for much more detail, visit the SETI Institute):

N = R* · fp · ne · fl · fi · fc · L

N, the quantity we’re trying to identify, refers to how many civilizations there are in the Milky Way galaxy, that have reached a technological state whereby they can make radio transmissions into space, rendering them theoretically detectable by other civilizations on other planets. It is a product of these factors: R*, or how fast stars form that could support intelligent life; fp, how many of those stars, in turn, support planetary systems, like our own solar system; ne, how many planets in each of these solar systems could at least theoretically, due to their environment, support life; fl, how many of those planets turn out to be places where life indeed develops; and fi, or how many of those planets produce life that has intelligence.

And then come the two terms of the equation that are perhaps the most interesting: fc, denoting “the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space”; and L, denoting “the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.”

Here’s a video of Sagan explaining the equation from the old Cosmos. Note that its final term (referred to above as L), for Sagan, is visually represented by a mushroom cloud—for civilizations that destroy themselves with nuclear weapons won’t last long enough to send radio signals into space for a very long period of time. Or as Sagan observes, some civilizations “might…snuff themselves out in an instant of unforgivable neglect.” They might blow themselves up.

The new installment of Cosmos has, in effect, replaced that mushroom cloud with a coal plant. Exploring the theme of civilizational collapse in a Jared Diamondesque vein, Tyson proceeds to look into all the factors that cause civilizations to fall away, thus in effect exploring that last crucial term in the Drake Equation, L (although the show does not mention the equation by name). Here, things like violence and war loom large, but so do major destabilizing environmental or climatic shifts. As Tyson puts it, “Whether or not we ever make contact with intelligent alien life may depend on a critical question: What is the life expectancy of a civilization?”

Neil deGrasse Tyson visits present-day Iraq to explain the rise—and collapse—of ancient Mesopotamian civilization. Fox/National Geographic

To illustrate this, the show focuses in particular on Mesopotamia of more than 4,000 years ago, home to some of the earliest writing, as well as myths that have lived on and achieved at least some modicum of immortality, like the epic of Gilgamesh. Yet the Mesopotamian civilization was done in by violence, as well as by environmental pollution (too much irrigation of farmlands with salt-laden water) and climate change, or more specifically, an epic drought. They thought it was a divine punishment. We know better…or do we?

Which brings us to our own civilization, a global one that is currently digging a deep hole of its own—climate change—which could threaten a major collapse. We might, unfortunately, be one of those “civilizations that self-destruct,” in Tyson’s words. Here’s Tyson’s big statement about it (you can watch the video here):

TYSON: In one respect, we’re ahead of the people of ancient Mesopotamia. Unlike them, we understand what’s happening to our world. For example, we’re pumping greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, at a rate not seen on Earth for a million years. And there’s scientific consensus that we’re destabilizing our climate. Yet, our civilization seems to be in the grip of denial, a kind of paralysis. There’s a disconnect between what we know, and what we do.

Being able to adapt our behavior to challenges is as good a definition of intelligence as any I know. If our greater intelligence is the hallmark of our species, then we should use it, as all other beings use their distinctive advantages, to help ensure that their offspring prosper, and their heredity is passed on, and that the fabric of nature that sustains us is protected. Human intelligence is imperfect, surely, and newly arisen. The ease with which it can be sweet talked, overwhelmed, or subverted by other hardwired tendencies, sometimes themselves disguised as the light of reason, is worrisome. But if our intelligence is the only edge, we must learn to use it better, to sharpen it, to understand its limitations and deficiencies. To use it, as cats use stealth before pouncing, as walking sticks use camouflage, to make it the tool of our survival. If we do this, we can solve almost any problem we are likely to confront in the next 100,000 years.

The show then ends by envisioning a better future, one in which we emerge from the cloud of denial, recognize our problems, and face and get past them. If we do that, and peer far enough ahead, Tyson notes that we can imagine a world in which “the last internal combustion engine is placed in a museum, as the effects of climate change reverse and diminish,” and in which “the polar ice caps are restored to the way they were in the 19th century.” And ultimately, one in which we get off world, explore the stars—and discover a fate that is no longer specifically tied to Earth alone. A form of immortality.

In other words, you might say that the latest Cosmos makes the grandest statement yet for why we had better do something about climate change. And here’s the thing: It looks, based on previews, like the next episode will focus even more deeply on the subject.

If anything can shift our culture towards a broader appreciation of science, then, this show may really be it.

On our most popular episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, Tyson explained why he doesn’t debate science deniers, and much more. You can listen here (interview starts around minute 13):

Link: 

"Cosmos" Explains How Global Warming Threatens Civilization as We Know It

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Cosmos" Explains How Global Warming Threatens Civilization as We Know It

Dot Earth Blog: Three Long Views of Life With Rising Seas

A novelist, an astrobiologist and an ecologist explore the impact of centuries of rising seas. Link:  Dot Earth Blog: Three Long Views of Life With Rising Seas ; ;Related ArticlesProtest of Planned Incinerator Turns Violent in Chinese CityProtest Against Planned Incinerator Turns Violent in Chinese CityBrothers Battle Climate Change on Two Fronts ;

More here – 

Dot Earth Blog: Three Long Views of Life With Rising Seas

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, Smith's, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: Three Long Views of Life With Rising Seas

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real

Mother Jones

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

Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian, has had quite the run lately. A few weeks back, she was featured in the first episode of the Showtime series The Years of Living Dangerously, meeting with actor Don Cheadle in her home state of Texas to explain to him why faith and a warming planet aren’t in conflict. (You can watch that episode for free on YouTube; Hayhoe is a science adviser for the show.) Then, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people of 2014; Cheadle wrote the entry. “There’s something fascinating about a smart person who defies stereotype,” Cheadle observed.

Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians, and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. “I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to,” explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it’s entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values.”

Hayhoe’s approach to science—and to religion—was heavily influenced by her father, a former Toronto science educator and also, at one time, a missionary. “For him, there was never any conflict between the idea that there is a God, and the idea that science explains the world that we see around us,” says Hayhoe. When she was 9, her family moved to Colombia, where her parents worked as missionaries and educators, and where Hayhoe saw what environmental vulnerability really looks like. “Some of my friends lived in houses that were made out of cardboard Tide boxes, or corrugated metal,” she says. “And realizing that you don’t really need that much to be happy, but at the same time, you’re very vulnerable to the environment around you, the less that you have.”

Her research today, on the impacts of climate change, flows from those early experiences. And of course, it is inspired by her faith, which for Hayhoe, puts a strong emphasis on caring for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. “That gives us even more reason to care about climate change,” says Hayhoe, “because it is affecting people, and is disproportionately affecting the poor, and the vulnerable, and those who cannot care for themselves.”

The fact remains, though, that most evangelical Christians in the United States do not think as Hayhoe does. Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. Evangelicals in general, explains Hayhoe, tend to be more politically conservative, and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they’re all a bunch of atheists). Plus, some evangelicals really do go in for that whole “the world is ending” thing—not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. So how does Hayhoe reach them?

From our interview, here are five of Hayhoe’s top arguments, for evangelical Christians, on climate change:

1. Conservation is Conservative. The evangelical community isn’t just a religious community, it’s also a politically conservative one on average. So Hayhoe speaks directly to that value system. “What’s more conservative than conserving our natural resources, making sure we have enough for the future, and not wasting them like we are today?” she asks. “That’s a very conservative value.”

Indeed, many conservatives don’t buy into climate science because they don’t like the “Big Government” solutions they suspect the problem entails. But Hayhoe has an answer ready for that one too: Conservative-friendly, market-driven solutions to climate problems are actually all around us. “A couple of weeks ago, Texas…smashed the record for the most wind energy ever produced. It was 38 percent of our energy that week, came from wind,” she says. And Hayhoe thinks that’s just the beginning: “If you look at the map of where the greatest potential is for wind energy, it’s right up the red states. And I think that is going to make a big difference in the future.”

2. Yes, God Would Let This Happen. One conservative Christian argument is that God just wouldn’t let human activities ruin the creation. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, “God’s still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous.” You can watch Inhofe and other religious right politicians dismissing climate change on biblical grounds in this video:

Hayhoe thinks the answer to Inhofe’s objection is simple: From a Christian perspective, we have free will to make decisions and must live with their consequences. This is, after all, a classic Christian solution to the theological problem of evil. “Are bad things happening? Yes, all the time,” says Hayhoe. “Someone gets drunk, they get behind the wheel of a car, they kill an innocent bystander, possibly even a child or a mother.”

Climate change is, to Hayhoe, just another wrong, another problem, brought on by flawed humans exercising their wills in a way that is less than fully advisable. “That’s really what climate change is,” she says. “It’s a casualty of the decisions that we have made.”

3. The Bible Does Not Approve of Letting the World Burn. Hayhoe agrees with the common liberal perception that the evangelical community contains a significant proportion of apocalyptic or end-times believers—and that this belief, literally that judgment is upon us, undermines their concern about preserving the planet. But she thinks there’s something very wrong with that outlook, and indeed, that the Bible itself refutes it.

“The message that, we don’t care about anybody else, screw everybody, and let the world burn, that message is not a consistent message in the Bible,” says Hayhoe. In particular, she thinks the apostle Paul has a pretty good answer to end-times believers in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Hayhoe breaks Paul’s message down like this: “I’ve heard that you’ve been quitting your jobs, you have been laying around and doing nothing, because you think that Christ is returning and the world is ending.” But Paul serves up a rebuke. In Hayhoe’s words: “Get a job, support yourself and your family, care for others—again, the poor and the vulnerable who can’t care for themselves—and do what you can, essentially, to make the world a better place, because nobody knows when that’s going to happen.”

One reason some evangelicals dismiss climate worries is an apocalyptic worldview. Igor Zh./Shutterstock

4. Even If You Believe in a Young Earth, It’s Still Warming. One reason there’s such a tension between the evangelical community and science is, well, science. Many evangelicals are Young-Earth creationists, who believe that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.

Hayhoe isn’t one of those. She studied astrophysics, and quasars that are quite ancient; and as she notes, believing the Earth and universe to be young creates a pretty problematic understanding of God: “Either you have to believe that God created everything looking as if it were billions of years old, or you have to believe it is billions of years old.” In the former case, God would, in effect, seem to be trying to trick us.

But when it comes to talking to evangelical audiences about climate change, Hayhoe doesn’t emphasize the age of the Earth, simply because, she says, there’s no need. “When I talk to Christian audiences, I only show ice core data and other proxy data going back 6,000 years,” says Hayhoe, “because I believe that you can make an even stronger case, for the massive way in which humans have interfered with the natural system, by only looking at a shorter period of time.”

6,000 years of temperatures records and a projection of the warming to come. Jos Hagelaars/My View on Climate Change

“In terms of addressing the climate issue,” says Hayhoe, “we don’t have time for everybody to get on the same page regarding the age of the universe.”

5. “Caring for our environment is caring for people.” Finally, Hayhoe thinks it is crucial to emphasize to evangelicals that saving the planet is about saving people…not just saving animals. “I think there’s this perception,” says Hayhoe, “that if an environmentalist were driving down the road…and they saw a baby seal on one side and they saw a human on the other side, they would veer out of the way to avoid the baby seal and run down the human.” That’s why it’s so important, in her mind, to emphasize how climate change affects people (a logic once again affirming the perception that the polar bear was a terrible symbol for global warming). And there’s bountiful evidence of this: The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “Working Group II” report on climate impacts emphasizes threats to our food supply, a risk of worsening violence in a warming world, and the potential displacement of vulnerable populations.

So is the message working? Hayhoe thinks so. After all, while only 44 percent of evangelicals may accept modern climate science today, she notes that that’s considerable progress from a 2008 Pew poll, which had that number at just 34 percent. Ultimately, for Hayhoe, it comes down to this: “If you believe that God created the world, and basically gave it to humans as this incredible gift to live on, then why would you treat it like garbage? Treating the world like garbage says a lot about how you think about the person who you believe created the Earth.”

To listen to the full interview with Katharine Hayhoe, you can stream below:

This episode of Inquiring Minds, a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and best-selling author Chris Mooney, also features a discussion of recent findings that laboratory mice respond differently to male researchers, and new breakthroughs in “therapeutic cloning,” or the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos.

To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. We are also available on Stitcher and on Swell. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook. Inquiring Minds was also recently singled out as one of the “Best of 2013” on iTunes—you can learn more here.

Read original article:

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Sterling, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real