Tag Archives: environment

Citizen Scientist – Mary Ellen Hannibal

by Myrna Posted on February 5, 2019

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Citizen Scientist

Searching for Heroes and Hope in an Age of Extinction

Mary Ellen Hannibal

Genre: Environment

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: September 6, 2016

Publisher: The Experiment

Seller: Workman Publishing Co., Inc.


A San Francisco Chronicle Best Book of 2016: “Intelligent and impassioned, Citizen Scientist is essential reading for anyone interested in the natural world.” Award-winning writer Mary Ellen Hannibal has long reported on scientists’ efforts to protect vanishing species, but it was only through citizen science that she found she could take action herself. As she wades into tide pools, spots hawks, and scours mountains, she discovers the power of the heroic volunteers who are helping scientists measure—and even slow—today’s unprecedented mass extinction. Citizen science may be the future of large-scale field research—and our planet’s last, best hope.

See original article: 

Citizen Scientist – Mary Ellen Hannibal

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Citizen Scientist – Mary Ellen Hannibal

Will this human dressed as a receipt convince Californians to ban paper receipts?

by OliviaPortillo1 Posted on January 23, 2019

Subscribe to The Beacon

In the wild world of U.S. politics, it isn’t unusual for elected officials to use props to illustrate their points. As you might recall, Republican Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to argue against the validity of global warming. But San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting might have just won the award for best political prop.

Earlier this month, while introducing a bill that would require California businesses to issue electronic receipts instead of paper ones (unless a customer specifically asks for a paper copy), Ting brought a dejected-looking adult man dressed up as a literal receipt onstage and made him stand there for the entire 20-minute announcement. (The cashier at CVS hands me a two-foot scroll every time I buy a roll of toilet paper, but God bless Ting for ensuring that none of us has to rely on that memory alone to conjure up the image of a freaking receipt.)

I promise you that whatever you’re imagining right now isn’t as good as the actual footage of this poor man standing in front of a crowd with his face sticking out of a receipt-hole: 

Oh yeah, about the actual bill: California Assembly Bill 161 is aimed at reducing paper waste in the state, because unlike a lot of other types of paper, receipts aren’t recyclable. Champions of the bill point out receipts are often printed on thermal paper, which is coated with chemicals, often including bisphenol A (BPA), a known endocrine disruptor that can be transferred to the skin in small amounts and is linked to some kinds of cancers.

Always free, always fresh.

Ask your climate scientist if Grist is right for you. See our privacy policy

BPA can contaminate recycling, so putting receipts in your blue bin (or, you know, excessively licking your fingers after handling them) is probably a bad idea. And considering California has already passed bills banning single-use plastic grocery bags and straws, making receipts an opt-in paper product could seem like a logical next step. If Ting’s new receipt reducing bill passes, businesses will have to go electronic by 2022 and would be subject to a small fine if they fail to do so.

But is a receipt-ban really the best way to go about reducing our environmental impact?

In the weeks since Ting brought his man-receipt on stage, critics have argued that, much like California’s plastic straw ban, the new bill isn’t exactly a ground-breaking win the environment. First of all, some businesses have pivoted away from BPA-coated receipts in recent years anyway. But more importantly, there isn’t a ton of evidence that receipts pose a huge environmental burden in the first place.

“Even 314,000 tons of paper receipts amount to less than .08 percent of the more than 400 million tons of all paper products — receipts to cardboard — used globally on an annual basis,” wrote Adam Minter of Bloomberg News. He argues spending time and energy on banning something as small as receipts “diverts attention and effort from bigger and far more pressing waste and recycling issues that are negatively impacting the state right now.”

Excerpt from: 

Will this human dressed as a receipt convince Californians to ban paper receipts?

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, oven, OXO, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will this human dressed as a receipt convince Californians to ban paper receipts?

600+ environmental orgs say this is what they want in a Green New Deal

by Joan Ames Posted on January 10, 2019

Subscribe to The Beacon

The urgency to get to a fossil fuel-free future is growing. Now comes the discussion over just how to get there.

The Green New Deal is taking shape — not so much in Congress (at least not yet), but certainly among the nation’s environmental groups, many of which came together to outline want they do and don’t want to see in any future climate legislation.

On Thursday, more than 600 organizations submitted a letter to House representatives with a list of steps they say are required “at a minimum” for the U.S. to help keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The message was signed by green movement heavyweights like 350.org, Greenpeace, Sunrise Movement, and Friends of the Earth — as well as many local grassroots groups, including Communities for a Better Environment in California and WE ACT for Environmental Justice in New York.

The recommendations include:

A complete shift to 100 percent renewable power generation by 2035.
An end to all fossil fuel leasing, extraction, and subsidies. That includes putting a stop to the export of crude oil and other fossil fuels.
Greater investment in renewable-energy-powered public transportation and better incentives for electric vehicles, with a goal of phasing out fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks by 2040.
More input from Native American tribes, workers, and the communities most impacted by fossil fuels. The letter says these groups should have the first say in what the transition away from fossil fuels looks like because a lot of energy infrastructure disproportionately impacts the places where they live.

Despite the sign-off from many environmental organizations, the letter may not strike a chord with all renewable energy advocates. It takes a stand on several topics that have ignited debate within the green community.

The letter demands a halt to nuclear energy, garbage incineration, and biomass energy. Such a move would throw a wrench in the green energy targets for several states which count these sources as “renewable.” Although there’s been some excitement for next-gen nuclear energy, these energy alternatives have posed health risks associated with toxic emissions and uranium contamination.

The letter also says the Clean Air Act should be used to rein in greenhouse gases. Traditionally, the act is associated with air pollution, not CO2. That said, carbon is often released with co-pollutants, and communities breathing the worst air say Congress should tackle pollution and climate change with one fell swoop.

The letter closes with a vow by the signing organizations to “vigorously oppose … corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits, including market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, [and] carbon capture and storage.” (Carbon trading programs, like California’s popular cap-and-trade system, have been called out for making air quality worse in some communities, and critics of carbon capture say it takes the focus away from creating an economy that isn’t dependent on fossil fuels).

Browsing the 600+ organizations that endorsed the letter, there are still some big names missing, including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Excerpt from:

600+ environmental orgs say this is what they want in a Green New Deal

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 600+ environmental orgs say this is what they want in a Green New Deal

Is Organic Food Worse for the Environment?

by DanLoftin065 Posted on January 10, 2019

Most of us know there are many health benefits to eating organic food. But is the farming practice all that healthy for the environment? A new study suggests organic food might have some serious consequences for the environment when compared to conventionally produced food. Here?s what it found.

Study: Organic farming comes with a ?carbon opportunity cost?

Credit: Rasica/Getty Images

Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden have found organic food has a greater impact than conventionally farmed food on the environment because it requires more land use. And this results in higher carbon dioxide emissions. In organic farming, yields are typically lower for the same area of land, primarily because the farmers don?t use potent synthetic chemicals to promote growth, according to a news release on the study.

?The greater land-use in organic farming leads indirectly to higher carbon dioxide emissions, thanks to deforestation,? researcher Stefan Wirsenius says in the news release. “The world’s food production is governed by international trade, so how we farm in Sweden influences deforestation in the tropics. If we use more land for the same amount of food, we contribute indirectly to bigger deforestation elsewhere in the world.?

For instance, the researchers cite organic peas farmed in Sweden as having a 50 percent higher impact on the climate than conventionally farmed peas because of lower yields per hectare. Organic meat and dairy products also contribute to higher emissions, as they use organic feed.

The study applied a new metric ? the ?carbon opportunity cost? ? to evaluate the impact of land use on carbon dioxide emissions. ?This metric takes into account the amount of carbon that is stored in forests, and thus released as carbon dioxide as an effect of deforestation,? according to the news release. The researchers note that previous comparisons between organic and conventionally farmed food didn?t often take this impact into account, likely because scientists didn?t have an appropriate measurement like the carbon opportunity cost.

But what about the environmental benefits?

Credit: amenic181/Getty Images

While organic farming does typically take more land to produce the same yields as conventional farming, there?s much more to the story of how it influences the environment. And it?s certainly not all bad news.

Organic farming practices have the potential to improve the environment over the long term. ?It aims to produce food while establishing an ecological balance to prevent soil fertility or pest problems,? according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ?Organic agriculture takes a proactive approach as opposed to treating problems after they emerge.?

For example, organic farming involves practices ? ?such as crop rotations, inter-cropping, symbiotic associations, cover crops, organic fertilizers and minimum tillage? ? that help to improve soil and support flora and fauna, the FAO says. These practices enhance nutrients in the soil, subsequently boosting crop yields, as well as improving biodiversity in the environment. Plus, organic agriculture works to decrease water pollution by avoiding synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. And, of course, this leads to many beneficial health effects for humans, as well.

Furthermore, many organic agricultural practices actually work to return carbon to the soil, which helps to combat climate change, according to the FAO. Plus, it reduces nonrenewable energy use by avoiding chemicals produced with high levels of fossil fuels. Still, even with its environmental benefits, more research and innovations must occur before organic farming can efficiently feed the global population without causing substantial damage through deforestation.

So what?s a consumer to do?

Credit: Rawpixel/Getty Images

The question becomes: Which type of agriculture should we support as consumers? And the answer might have more to do with which foods you eat.

One study created 500 hypothetical scenarios for feeding the world population in 2050 with the farmland we already have now (i.e., no further deforestation). It found that lower-yield organic farming could work for the world if more people adopted plant-based diets. If everyone went vegan, the study found our existing farmland would be adequate 100 percent of the time. And 94 percent of the vegetarian scenarios were a success, as well. But only 39 percent of the scenarios were successful when everyone adopted a completely organic diet (including people who consumed meat and dairy), and just 15 percent worked when everyone ate a Western-style, meat-based diet.

The researchers from the carbon opportunity cost study also alluded to food choices as being more important than weighing the climate impact of organic versus conventional. ?Replacing beef and lamb, as well as hard cheeses, with vegetable proteins such as beans, has the biggest effect,? according to the news release. Moreover, if you?re a meat- or dairy-eater, organic farming often has higher animal welfare standards (though not always), which is a concern for many people.

Still, it?s not realistic to expect the entire world to go vegan. But what we can do now is aim to purchase our food from producers that are working to better the environment. And for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, that still means buying organic. ?By opting for organic products, the consumer through his/her purchasing power promotes a less polluting agricultural system,? the FAO says. Organic farming might need to adapt some of its practices to improve yields, but its benefits for the environment are too great to ignore.

Related Stories:

Why Regenerative Agriculture is the Future of Food
7 Easy Eco-Friendly Lifestyle Changes You Can Make Today
Are Indoor Fireplaces Safe For Your Health?

Main image credit: valentinrussanov/Getty Images

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

See original article: 

Is Organic Food Worse for the Environment?

Posted in alo, bigo, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Organic Food Worse for the Environment?

The Secret Life of Plants – Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird

by Myrna Posted on January 9, 2019

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

The Secret Life of Plants

A Fascinating Account of the Physical, Emotional, and Spiritual Relations Between Plants and Man

Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird

Genre: Nature

Price: $2.99

Publish Date: June 12, 2018

Publisher: Harper Paperbacks

Seller: HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS


Explore the inner world of plants and its fascinating relation to mankind, as uncovered by the latest discoveries of science. A perennial bestseller. In this truly revolutionary and beloved work, drawn from remarkable research, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird cast light on the rich psychic universe of plants. Now available in a new edition, The Secret Life of Plants explores plants' response to human care and nurturing, their ability to communicate with man, plants' surprising reaction to music, their lie-detection abilities, their creative powers, and much more. Tompkins and Bird's classic book affirms the depth of humanity's relationship with nature and adds special urgency to the cause of protecting the environment that nourishes us.

Link: 

The Secret Life of Plants – Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Secret Life of Plants – Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird

Why Regenerative Agriculture is the Future of Food

by Gale19204076593 Posted on January 7, 2019

As we face an ever-growing need to combat climate change, many people around the world are looking at how we produce our food. Agriculture has a strong effect on climate change (and vice versa). While some methods contribute to higher pollution and environmental degradation, others actually have the potential to reverse climate change. And one of those practices is regenerative agriculture.

Defining regenerative agriculture

The Regenerative Agriculture Initiative of California State University, Chico and The Carbon Underground ? in conjunction with several other companies and organizations ? worked together to create a definition for regenerative agriculture. The goal was to give a basic meaning to the relatively new term and to prevent it from being ?watered down,? according to The Carbon Underground.

??Regenerative Agriculture? describes farming and grazing practices that, among other benefits, reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic matter and restoring degraded soil biodiversity ? resulting in both carbon drawdown and improving the water cycle,? the definition reads. ?Specifically, Regenerative Agriculture is a holistic land management practice that leverages the power of photosynthesis in plants to close the carbon cycle, and build soil health, crop resilience and nutrient density.?

According to Regeneration International, the objective is to continuously improve the land, ?using technologies that regenerate and revitalize the soil and the environment.? The practice also helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions ? a key factor in battling climate change. In a nutshell, farmers aim to leave the environment better than when they found it.

Although many of regenerative agriculture?s core tenets are similar to organic farming, the practices are not synonymous. Both farming methods do discourage the use of synthetic chemicals, though regenerative farmers might not necessarily be certified organic. And organic agriculture doesn?t guarantee a carbon drawdown, according to The Carbon Underground. Plus, unlike organic food, there?s no certification yet for regenerative products ? though a pilot program is in the works for farmers who practice regenerative agriculture.

Regenerative agriculture practices

Credit: valentinrussanov/Getty Images

So what exactly do regenerative farmers do? The Regenerative Agriculture Initiative-The Carbon Underground definition lays out four main practices.

1. Contribute to soil building and fertility.

Regenerative agriculture discourages soil tillage. ?Tillage breaks up (pulverizes) soil aggregation and fungal communities while adding excess O2 to the soil for increased respiration and CO2 emission,? the definition document says. Besides carbon loss, it can lead to soil erosion and increased water runoff. Furthermore, farmers increase soil fertility through biological methods, including the use of cover crops, crop rotation, compost and manure. They avoid synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which can create an imbalance in the soil?s microbiome, diminish nutrients and lead to weaker plants.

2. Improve water cleanliness and retention.

Avoiding synthetic chemicals also makes for less water pollution ? another core tenet of regenerative agriculture. Farmers have efficient irrigation systems to optimize water use and prevent contamination. Plus, as farmers work to improve the soil, this increases its ability for water retention. Among many other factors, limiting tillage is one practice that enhances water infiltration and retention.

3. Increase biodiversity, and boost the health of the ecosystem.

Regenerative farmers aim to protect natural ecosystems. ?Building biological ecosystem diversity begins with inoculation of soils with composts or compost extracts to restore soil microbial community population, structure and functionality,? according to the definition document. Again, farmers avoid synthetic chemicals on which plants can become dependent and fail to thrive naturally. They take soil samples to guide them in finding the right nutrient balance. And they use plants to attract beneficial insects.

4. Lessen CO2 emissions by diverting carbon back into the soil.

As regenerative farmers carefully manage their land and promote a healthy, natural ecosystem, it helps to increase carbon in the soil and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Plus, the farmers? avoidance of synthetic chemicals also helps to combat climate change, as they?re often produced using high levels of fossil fuels. As for livestock, regenerative agriculture involves well-managed grazing practices that lead to better land, healthier animals and lower carbon dioxide and methane emissions.

What?s in it for us?

Credit: alle12/Getty Images

Regenerative agriculture offers several benefits to the global population ? and even noticeable ones to us as individuals. These are just a few, according to Regeneration International.

Boosts food?s nutrition

Regenerative agriculture tends to produce healthy, resilient plants. And as consumers, we benefit from this with more nutritious food. The nutrient-dense soil passes on that nourishment to the crops ? and our bodies. Plus, thanks to farmers nurturing the natural ecosystem, it?s better able to filter out pollution and chemicals from our food.

Restores nature

Regenerative agriculture is just that ? regenerative. Its methods help to improve biodiversity, which ?is fundamental to agricultural production and food security, as well as a valuable ingredient of environmental conservation,? according to Regeneration International. Plus, the farmers? grazing strategies work to restore grasslands that have been degraded.

Benefits local economics

Family farmers have taken a key role in regenerative agriculture. These are people who have a strong working knowledge of their local land and how best to sustainably manage it. So support of regenerative agriculture benefits these farmers and their local economies. Plus, keeping them in business means preserving the more traditional, environmentally friendly farming practices that go back generations.

Combats climate change

Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change around the world. ?The current industrial food system is responsible for 44 to 57% of all global greenhouse gas emissions,? Regeneration International says. But regenerative agriculture has the potential to reverse this damage. Not only does it contribute lower emissions than conventional farming, but it has the ability to sequester more carbon in the soil, rather than in our atmosphere.

Feeds the global population

As the global population grows, food production will have to adjust one way or another. Continuing to use conventional farming methods likely would mean more deforestation ? and higher greenhouse gas emissions. But shifting to more widespread use of regenerative agriculture could lessen that blow. Regenerative farming conditions work to naturally protect crops from disease, pests, drought and more. This improves yields without having to add chemicals or other factors that can harm the environment. Thus, it could be a way to sustainably feed the global population for generations to come.

Main image credit: stevanovicigor/Getty Images

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

Read this article: 

Why Regenerative Agriculture is the Future of Food

Posted in alo, ATTRA, bigo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Regenerative Agriculture is the Future of Food

How to Keep Your Holiday Shopping Zero Waste

by RigoberMinahan Posted on November 30, 2018

It’s no secret that when the holidays come around most Americans go wild, hunting down the best deals, filling their shopping carts with goodies on Black Friday, Cyber Monday (week, really) and on till the New Year.

Now, I’m not here to condemn holiday shopping. It’s fun to give gifts?? and pick up a little something for yourself here and there. But when Americans are responsible for sending $11 billion worth of packing material?straight to the landfill every year, it’s?hard not to see that things have gotten very much out of hand.?And there are serious ramifications, too.

What starts as a cheery assortment of wrapping paper, ribbon and packing peanuts quickly becomes a pile of greenhouse-gas-leaching garbage as it undergoes bacterial composition. Trash like this also releases tonnes?of methane, a greenhouse gas with climate change impact that is more than 25 times?greater than that of carbon dioxide. We can’t go on like this!

It’s hard to set aside holiday traditions. I’m sure many of us have fond memories of waking up to see wrapped gifts glittering under the Christmas tree. But, as it stands today, this routine of?shipping gifts wrapped in plastic, cardboard, zip ties and Styrofoam, only to re-wrap them in non-recyclable paper and ribbon at their destination, is really taking its toll on the environment.

This year, I urge you to consider trying out a new way to celebrate this season?? one that doesn’t leave a trail of garbage in its wake. It’ll be worth it, I promise!

Give a gift that needs no packaging?? an experience!

Purchase a yearlong membership to a local museum, pay the entrance fee for a state park you know they’d enjoy, get concert tickets. There are so many options!

Buy your gifts from eco-conscious companies who ship plastic-free.

More and more companies are catching on to the fact that plastic is not a shipping requirement. Here’s a nice roundup of eco-conscious sellers by our friends over at My Plastic Free Life.

Reuse holiday cards from last year.

Simply cut the decorative front off of any holiday cards you received the year before, then write the recipient’s name on the blank side. Free, cheap and eco-friendly!

Shop local.

It’s so much easier to avoid unnecessary packaging when you can pick the gifts out in person and take them home with you that day. Skip the bag at checkout, refuse the wrapping station and walk between shops if you’re able.

Set up a recycling station at home.

Make it easy to process recyclables by setting up an easy-to-access recycling station at home. Got a cardboard gift tag or paper shopping bag to toss? Pop it in the paper bin.

How do you keep your holiday shopping as low waste as possible?

Related Stories:

How to Have a Zero Waste Christmas
How to Throw a Stress-Free Zero Waste Holiday Party
Best Non-Paper Gift Wrapping Options

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

More here: 

How to Keep Your Holiday Shopping Zero Waste

Posted in alo, bigo, Cyber, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Holiday shopping, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Keep Your Holiday Shopping Zero Waste

Here’s what everyone gets wrong about the climate report

by KashaDljvkevnt Posted on November 27, 2018

Subscribe to The Beacon

When reporters combed through the recently released National Climate Assessment, searching for news, they flagged the potential damage to the U.S. economy. Climate change could “knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end,” said a headline in the New York Times, and other outlets picked up the claim. When a reporter asked President Donald Trump about climate change devastating the economy, he responded, “I don’t believe it.”

The thing is, Trump’s statement is worth a second look. (Crazy, I know). That 10 percent projection comes from an outlier data point on a graph in the report. It’s what happens if we fail to reduce emissions at all, everything else also goes wrong, and temperatures rise 15 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s the worst-case scenario. A more reasonable person might be excused for saying he doesn’t believe the worst-case scenario will come to pass.

That said, even if you don’t focus on the 10 percent blow to gross domestic product — the rightmost point below — the rest of the graph suggests that climate change will almost certainly make the country poorer by 2100, especially if we fail to reduce emissions.

And it could be worse. Marshall Burke, a Stanford scientist, has published estimates where climate change shrinks the U.S. by more than 20 percent by 2100. Unmitigated climate change could squeeze the economy down between 1 and 20 percent by 2100, compared to what it would have been without warming. It’s all within the realm of possibility.

Why the huge range in these projections? Because there are huge unknowns, said Burke. “If you are looking at the historical record about how temperature affects agricultural production, for instance, there’s noise in the data, there’s sampling error, there’s a lot of uncertainty. And then there’s also a lot of uncertainty in how much warming we are going to see.”

These projections also mask the likely pain of economic contraction by lumping it all together into one number, said Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan who reviewed the report for the National Academy of Science. In fact, people living in the Southeast are likely to get poorer while people in the North may actually benefit.

Solomon Hsian et al.

The point is to avoid fixating on any particular number, like 10 percent, Yohe said. “I’m afraid that the report will be dismissed, not because it’s 2 percent, or 10 percent but because 2100 seems really far away. Who cares? How do we refocus back to something people will understand? People are looking out their windows and seeing climate change. People look at their TVs and see California burning. These aren’t projections or estimates, they are observable facts.”

So what should we focus on? Let’s look at what the report actually says: Unless we really get our act together “climate change is projected to impose substantial damages to the U.S. economy, human, health, and the environment.”

And you don’t need to wait for the projections to come true. The report, and Grist, have documented dozens of ways in which climate change is already causing financial distress, right now. In the Southeast residents in 60 percent of cities are already paying for more air conditioning as heat waves increase, and “high tide flooding already poses daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods, infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the region.” In the West, a 2006 heat wave caused some “600 deaths, 16,000 emergency room visits, 1,100 hospitalizations in California, and economic costs of $5.4 billion.” In Oklahoma and Texas, flooding “caused an estimated $2.6 billion in damage in 2015.” Last year, climate-related disasters cost the United States over $300 billion. The report predicts the bill will keep rising.

We can argue about whether climate change will someday “devastate the economy,” but there’s no arguing with the fact that we are already spending heaps of money on crap that we might have avoided.

Link – 

Here’s what everyone gets wrong about the climate report

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Holiday shopping, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s what everyone gets wrong about the climate report

Illinois voters saw through this Republican’s climate facade

by FNGCarlton Posted on November 9, 2018

Subscribe to The Beacon

On Tuesday night, a Democratic climate advocate ran against a Republican “climate advocate” in Illinois’ 6th district. The results of that race make one thing clear: If conservative politicians want to incorporate the environment into their platforms, they have to mean it. Let’s back up for a second.

In 2016, a bipartisan effort to address rising temperatures formed. The Climate Solutions Caucus said it would “explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate.” But after the group failed to accomplish, well, anything, the Climate Solutions Caucus appeared to chiefly be exploring one thing: how to shield conservatives running in states where environmental issues matter to voters.

The question leading into the midterms was whether belonging to the caucus would have any impact for Republicans running for reelection. That brings us back to Illinois’ 6th district, where Sean Casten — a Democrat with a background in renewable energy (and a background as a contributing writer to Grist) — beat out six-term incumbent Peter Roskam.

Story continues below

Roskam became a member of the Climate Solutions Caucus in May, two months after Casten won the Democratic primary on a platform that featured climate action front and center. After joining the group, Roskam, alongside a lion’s share of the Republicans in the caucus, voted for a resolution condemning the very notion of a carbon tax. (Putting a price on carbon is a Republican-friendly, market-based approach to fighting climate change, but never mind that.)

Roskam’s lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters — an organization that keeps tabs on how members of Congress vote on green issues — wasn’t anything to write home about. He earned a 7 percent lifetime score from the group, and scored just 3 percent last year. He’s also on record calling global warming “junk science.”

“The Climate Solutions Caucus — I truly don’t know what its purpose is,” Casten tells Grist. “It’s a great way to provide cover for Republicans who want to appear to care, but it’s not lost on anybody in this district that Roskam called climate change junk science and joined the Climate Solutions Caucus right after I won the primary to try to give himself some cover.”

Casten, on the other hand, was unequivocal about his stance on green issues. He called global warming “the single biggest existential threat we face as a species,” and has a plan for what he wants to do about it once he gets to Congress.

As a former CEO of renewable energy companies, Casten says he’s equipped to frame the debate in a way that appeals to both businesses and consumers. “There’s no fundamental conflict between the economy and the environment, provided you focus on efficiency and conservation,” Casten says. He wants to streamline parts of the Clean Air Act to encourage innovation and efficiency. “The Clean Air Act is awesome,” he says. “But it’s got these flaws because it was written in a way that never contemplated regulating CO2.” That’s one of the things he plans to push for in 2019.

One thing he doesn’t plan on doing when he gets to Capitol Hill? Joining the Climate Solutions Caucus. “It’s not high on my list of things to do, because it’s really important for me to do something about climate,” he says. “I don’t need any resume bonafides.”

By the time results had rolled in from purple districts across the country on Tuesday night, it became evident that Roskam wasn’t the only climate caucus Republican whose diluted environmental message failed to resonate with voters. In all, 12 other conservative members of the caucus lost their seats to folks with better climate bonafides.

Original article – 

Illinois voters saw through this Republican’s climate facade

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, Landmark, ONA, Paradise, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Illinois voters saw through this Republican’s climate facade

Energy and Civilization – Vaclav Smil

by Myrna Posted on October 30, 2018

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Energy and Civilization
A History
Vaclav Smil

Genre: Science & Nature

Price: $19.99

Publish Date: May 12, 2017

Publisher: The MIT Press

Seller: The MIT Press


A comprehensive account of how energy has shaped society throughout history, from pre-agricultural foraging societies through today’s fossil fuel–driven civilization. “I wait for new Smil books the way some people wait for the next ‘Star Wars’ movie. In his latest book, Energy and Civilization: A History , he goes deep and broad to explain how innovations in humans’ ability to turn energy into heat, light, and motion have been a driving force behind our cultural and economic progress over the past 10,000 years. —Bill Gates, Gates Notes , Best Books of the Year Energy is the only universal currency; it is necessary for getting anything done. The conversion of energy on Earth ranges from terra-forming forces of plate tectonics to cumulative erosive effects of raindrops. Life on Earth depends on the photosynthetic conversion of solar energy into plant biomass. Humans have come to rely on many more energy flows—ranging from fossil fuels to photovoltaic generation of electricity—for their civilized existence. In this monumental history, Vaclav Smil provides a comprehensive account of how energy has shaped society, from pre-agricultural foraging societies through today’s fossil fuel–driven civilization. Humans are the only species that can systematically harness energies outside their bodies, using the power of their intellect and an enormous variety of artifacts—from the simplest tools to internal combustion engines and nuclear reactors. The epochal transition to fossil fuels affected everything: agriculture, industry, transportation, weapons, communication, economics, urbanization, quality of life, politics, and the environment. Smil describes humanity’s energy eras in panoramic and interdisciplinary fashion, offering readers a magisterial overview. This book is an extensively updated and expanded version of Smil’s Energy in World History (1994). Smil has incorporated an enormous amount of new material, reflecting the dramatic developments in energy studies over the last two decades and his own research over that time.

View this article – 

Energy and Civilization – Vaclav Smil

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Energy and Civilization – Vaclav Smil