Tag Archives: first

First Light – Richard Preston

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

First Light
The Search for the Edge of the Universe
Richard Preston

Genre: Physics

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: October 29, 1996

Publisher: Random House Publishing Group

Seller: Penguin Random House LLC


Seven years before Richard Preston wrote about horrifying viruses in The Hot Zone, he turned his attention to the cosmos. In First Light , he demonstrates his gift for creating an exciting and absorbing narrative around a complex scientific subject–in this case the efforts by astronomers at the Palomar Observatory in the San Gabriel Mountains of California to peer to the farthest edges of space through the Hale Telescope, attempting to solve the riddle of the creation of the universe. Richard Preston’s name became a household word with The Hot Zone, which sold nearly 800,000 copies in hardcover, was on The New York Times’s bestseller list for 42 weeks, and was the subject of countless magazine and newspaper articles. Preston has become a sought-after commentator on popular science subjects.

Continue reading: 

First Light – Richard Preston

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Presto, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on First Light – Richard Preston

Tofurky is suing over Missouri’s definition of ‘meat’

On Tuesday, Missouri became the first state to ban “meat” from the product labels of plant-based and lab-grown alternatives. The new law, part of a larger agricultural bill, prohibits “misrepresenting a product as meat” if it doesn’t come directly from an animal. Violators are subject to a fine of $1,000 and — wait for it — a year in prison.

Harsh punishment for calling vegetarian sausage “sausage,” huh? Tofurky seems to think so. The vegan company filed a lawsuit against Missouri on Monday to block the law, joined by the Good Food Institute, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri. The suit seeks to defend the right to market meatless products with meaty words on First Amendment grounds.

The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association lobbied to pass the law. The beef industry has been working to protect what it calls “beef nomenclature” with stricter labeling rules, which could potentially leave environmentally friendlier plant-based or lab-grown options with some unappetizing names (anyone want some textured vegetable protein for dinner?). In April, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association president wrote to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to raise the alarm over the “flagrantly deceptive food product labels proliferating the marketplace.”

To counter the claim that “vegan bacon” and the like are confusing shoppers, Tofurky’s lawsuit includes a surprising etymology lesson. The text points out that “the very oldest usages of the term ‘meat,’ and its analogues in the predecessor languages to Modern English … are to describe nourishment or food generally.”

We’ve used the word “meat” in this broader sense since the 9th century, Kory Stamper, lexicographer and author of Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries, told me last month during our conversation about similar tactics over the label “milk.”

Old English speakers used the word to refer specifically to animal flesh in the 1300s, Stamper said. But just a century later, people were also using it for the flesh of a fruit or a nut, like the meat of a walnut — another factoid cited by Tofurky’s lawsuit.

The suit notes that plant-based product labels have included words like “beef” and “sausage” for decades. It suggests that this practice has resulted in little confusion for shoppers: “[T]here have been no consumer protection lawsuits in Missouri — or any other state — challenging the accuracy of plant-based meat products’ marketing or packaging.”

If Missouri’s law stands, it could end up setting the standards for the whole country. As Quartz reports, it’s a big pain for food companies to tweak their packaging for just one state.

The U.S. has seen battles over vegan terminology before, like the vegan “mayo” controversy of 2015. And last month brought news that the FDA was officially reviewing the question of whether almond milk can be labeled as milk (after all, “an almond doesn’t lactate,” according to the FDA commissioner).

While Missouri is the first state to legislate a restricted definition of meat, there’s an international precedent: The language purists in charge of France approved a similar meat terminology ban in April.

View post:

Tofurky is suing over Missouri’s definition of ‘meat’

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tofurky is suing over Missouri’s definition of ‘meat’

Baltimore voters will decide on the future of their water

Water bills in Baltimore are out of control. Between 2010 and 2017, the typical household’s annual water and sewer bill jumped from $347 to $720. Residents have even turned to buying bottled water and purchasing gym memberships just to use the showers, because its more affordable than using their tap.

Like many cities on the East Coast, Baltimore’s aging water infrastructure is in need of major investments. To repair and update its systems, the city has raised water prices. Companies have been pushing privatization while many residents, particularly in neighborhoods that are working class communities of color, have had their water shut off.

But just this week, two water-related bills were approved to make it to the ballot this fall. One bill would make it illegal for the city to turn over its public water utility to a private company. The other would create a racial equity fund to ensure that city services treat all residents fairly.

Several companies have approached Baltimore asking to lease or manage the city’s water service. Privatization is often an appealing move to cash-strapped cities, but Baltimore has turned down efforts so far. A Food & Water Watch study of the 500 largest community water systems in the U.S. found that private utilities typically charge close to 60 percent more for water than their public counterparts.

If voters pass the bill this fall, Baltimore will become the first major U.S. city to ban the privatization of its water. “Hopefully other cities across the country will follow our lead,” says City Councilman Brandon Scott, who introduced another measure that he hopes will help improve water service in the city’s most vulnerable neighborhoods.

Scott’s bill would help fund an equity assessment program that would mandate city agencies and services to evaluate and address any disparities based on race, gender, or income.

Under the program, the city would take a look at how water cutoffs and high water bills impact different communities. If they see that those water bill issues are impacting poor people, people of color, or women more frequently, then they’ll have to make changes, Scott says.

View this article: 

Baltimore voters will decide on the future of their water

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Baltimore voters will decide on the future of their water

Is climate change a “ratings killer,” or is something wrong with for-profit media?

MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes retweeted Grist writer Eric Holthaus’ tweet about the deadly wildfires in Greece on Tuesday. After freelance writer Elon Green commented that news networks often fail to highlight the connection between climate change and extreme weather, Hayes wrote a reply that sent Twitter into a frenzy.

Climate change, he said, is a “palpable ratings killer” for news shows.

Environmental journalists came out in full force to set him straight. The reason that newsrooms are failing to bring up climate change has a lot to do with the way major news outlets are structured (profits first, content second), they said, and less to do with people’s interest in climate change.

Hayes has a pretty good track record when it comes to reporting on climate, compared to his competitors across other channels. He even did an “All In with Chris Hayes” special climate series in 2016.

But the point stands that the current for-profit media structure doesn’t jive well with compelling reporting on the environment. Take Holthaus’ response, for example.

Emily Atkin, staff writer at The New Republic, thinks it’s all about the way you present the piece.

Erin Biba, who writes for the likes of BBC and Wired, agrees with Atkin.

And Huffington Post’s Alexander Kaufman threw Hayes a bone for bringing the subject up in the first place.

It’s actually pretty unusual for a cable news host to go anywhere near the topic of climate change. An analysis from Media Matters for America shows that, of 127 TV broadcast segments on NBC, CBS, and ABC about the recent heat wave, only one mentioned climate change. It’s not like sweltering temperatures caused all those hosts to develop climate amnesia. The failure to link climate change to heat waves and downpours is a trend: Those same networks all but ignored the issue in their 2017 coverage of extreme weather events, another Media Matters report found.

Is 2018 the year that editors, producers, and talk show hosts finally figure out how to talk about climate change? For-profit newsrooms better start taking notes from environmental reporters soon; hurricane season is upon us once again.

Taken from:

Is climate change a “ratings killer,” or is something wrong with for-profit media?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is climate change a “ratings killer,” or is something wrong with for-profit media?

Meet 6 House Republicans who could get behind a carbon tax

The House of Representatives voted to reject the mere idea of a carbon tax on Thursday morning. But don’t worry — it was a non-binding resolution, meaning that it’s purely symbolic.

So why have the vote in the first place? The Koch brothers-backed resolution, sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, has popped up before to discourage the legislature from taking economic action on climate change. While every single House Republican supported a similar measure when it came up in 2016, this time, six Republicans broke from party ranks.

According to a statement by Mark Reynolds, executive director of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, the defections are “an indication that there are cracks in the wall separating Democrats and Republicans on climate change.”

Scalise’s resolution stated that taxing carbon dioxide emissions would be “detrimental” to the economy. While most House Republicans buy that reasoning, it goes against the economic consensus: Two comprehensive reports out this week showed that a well-constructed carbon tax wouldn’t hurt the economy. And perhaps more importantly, it won’t slow growth nearly as much as the alternative — the failure to act quickly on climate change.

The six GOP members weren’t the only ones to buck their party’s trend. Seven Democratic representatives supported Scalise’s amendment, which ended up passing 229-180. They were: Sanford Bishop (Georgia), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Vicente González (Texas), Conor Lamb (Pennsylvania), Stephanie Murphy (Florida), Tom O’Halleran (Arizona), and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona).

The vote came as House Republican Carlos Curbelo from Florida — who opposed the anti-tax measure — plans to bring forth a carbon tax proposal of his own. It would be the first carbon-pricing plan from a congressional Republican in nearly a decade.

Curbelo, a Grist 50 member, is the cofounder of a group called the Climate Solutions Caucus, which has been criticized as a safe space for House Republicans to “greenwash” their climate record without taking any real action. Thursday’s vote provided further evidence for that idea. The caucus has 43 Republican members, but only four of them voted against the anti-tax resolution.

So who are the other five Republicans who joined Curbelo in rejecting it? Some of them are solid climate champions. As for the others … well, maybe they’ve had a change of heart and will soon further denounce their anti-environment ways?

Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania: This guy voted in favor of the environment 71 percent of the time in 2017 — his first year in office — according to the League of Conservation Voters. That’s the best score of any congressional Republican. He also acknowledges humans’ role in causing climate change — and he kinda speaks our language:

“Washington needs independent voices now more than ever – especially when it comes to the environment and public health,” Fitzpatrick said last year upon receiving the Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s Climate Leadership Award. “It is vital that we never politicize protecting our environment or let partisanship prevent Washington from accomplishing common goals.”

Trey Hollingsworth, Indiana: This Hoosier representative went pro-environment just 6 percent of the time last year, voting to slash the EPA’s budget and prevent the implementation of methane pollution safeguards. One glimmer of hope? He voted to keep language directing the Department of Defense to prepare for climate change and warming’s threats to national security.

Mia Love, Utah: Love is a rare kind of conservative. She’s the first black female Republican elected to Congress, and she publicly states that climate change is a problem.

“I think it would be inappropriate for any of us to say we don’t want to do anything about this,” she told Utah’s KSL-TV, adding that she doesn’t think climate solutions have to come “at the detriment of our economy.”

Despite all that, she earned a score of just 3 percent from LCV for her anti-environment voting record last year.

Francis Rooney, Florida: Though this Sunshine State representative’s official site says that “no issue is more important to our District than clean water and a healthy environment,” his voting record indicates that he has other ideas. He had exactly zero pro-environment votes last year. Yep, zero.

Oh, and he also supported pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Come on, Rooney. Way to watch out for your constituents in soon-to-be underwater South Florida!

To end on a positive note: At least he’s working to ban offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida: A 66-year-old Cuban American and the first Latina in Congress, Ros-Lehtinen wasn’t always so sure about the established science of climate change. The representative of South Florida credits Carlos Curbelo with showing her the light. Ros-Lehtinen, now a member of the Climate Solutions Caucus, earned a score of 33 percent from LCV for her environmental voting record last year.

“Sea-level rise due to climate change is a scientific reality,” she told Cosmo last year. “People who argue that it isn’t changing, that the sea levels are the same, are just delusional.”

Too bad she’s retiring this year. We’ll miss ya, Ros-Lehtinen!

See more here: 

Meet 6 House Republicans who could get behind a carbon tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, Mop, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet 6 House Republicans who could get behind a carbon tax

Is Seattle’s straw ban a green gateway drug or just peak slactivism?

Suddenly, everyone and their mother is against plastic straws. (Including my mother — she’s been living plastic-free since long before it was cool.) This week, Seattle joined the ranks of cities taking a stand against plastic pollution by banning plastic straws and utensils. If patrons at restaurants, grocery stores, and cafeterias want disposable items, they’ll have to ask — and they’ll get recyclable or compostable versions.

It’s good timing. In the past year, everyone from Queen Elizabeth to Tom Brady has turned against straws, following a depressing plastic-filled conclusion to Blue Planet II and a viral video of a sea turtle with a straw stuck up its nose.

But we have to ask — under the threat of severe climate change, extreme weather, ocean acidification, and all the other plastic pollution in our waters, why has America become obsessed with something as small as plastic straws?

“I think it’s a way for people to feel that they have some agency over the problem of ocean plastics,” says Kara Lavender Law, researcher and professor at the Sea Education Association. “These are things that we have easy alternatives for.”

Compared to seemingly insurmountable problems like climate change, which can be tough (but not impossible!) to tackle on the individual level, straws look — well, easy. Despite the fact that these little pieces of plastic account for only, by one estimate, 0.03 percent of plastic waste, activists believe that starting with straws will encourage people to look at other disposable items in their lives.

“I can remember the moment when I looked around at my immediate surroundings and saw for the first time how much of it was plastic,” Law says. Straws, she argues, are a kind of gateway drug into environmentalism and a lower-waste life.

Psychologist Robert Gifford calls this the “foot in the door” technique. “Banning straws is about as important as spitting in the wind,” he told me. “But a lot of social psychology research says that if you get people to say yes to a small request, they are more likely to accede to more serious requests.”

It has certainly been that way for my mom, who started with plastic straws and now brings home whole chickens from the grocery store in a giant glass jar to avoid packaging waste. But aiming at a tiny target like straws could also have negative effects on environmental action.

Researchers have previously found that when people recycle, they feel entitled to use more resources and produce more waste. This effect is called “moral licensing,” where doing one good thing — like forgoing a straw — gives you the mental permission to do negative things later.

“We hear people say ‘I recycle so I’m done,’” says Gifford. “And of course, we know that recycling is a good thing but it’s not the solution.”

If straws go the way of recycling, then we might see a public willing to get rid of straws but unwilling to take any of the (slightly harder) actions to reduce plastic waste more significantly. Or even worse, a public unwilling to address the larger, and more abstract, problems of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

“I’ve never seen a straw floating in the ocean,” says John Bruno, a marine biologist at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. He worries that when environmentalists focus on small things like straws, the public and the media lose sight of the real dangers — ocean acidification and warming.

It’s an age-old environmental debate, between those who think the key to progress is individual action and those who think only collective political will (and aiming at the big stuff) can save us. In the meantime, try to avoid straws. If you’re in Seattle, you don’t have a choice anyway.

Source – 

Is Seattle’s straw ban a green gateway drug or just peak slactivism?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Seattle’s straw ban a green gateway drug or just peak slactivism?

A ferry that runs on hydrogen fuel cells is coming to San Francisco

After Tom Escher took over his family’s century-old ferry company in 1997, he wanted to buy a zero-emissions vessel that could whisk tourists around San Francisco without spewing harmful pollutants. Escher, who is 71, said he worried about the health of his four grandchildren and the environment they’d live in.

“Our boats were getting greener, and we were cleaning up, but I said, ‘Are we doing the best we can?’” Escher recalled.

A few years ago, he began searching in earnest for a fossil fuel-free ship, but he quickly hit a wall. Even as battery-powered cars and rooftop solar panels proliferated on land, the maritime industry had been slow to embrace clean energy at sea.

An innovative ferry project could soon change that.

On Monday, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced a $3 million grant to help build a hydrogen fuel cell ferry. Once built, it would be be the first of its kind in the United States, and the first commercial hydrogen fuel cell ferry in the world.

The planned vessel, named Water-Go-Round, would carry 84 passengers and stretch 70 feet long. Construction is expected to start early this fall in Alameda, California, and the vessel is slated to hit the water a year later.

The project is one of myriad efforts by cities in the U.S. and globally to clean up their passenger ships. While ferries contribute a relatively small slice of total maritime air pollution and carbon emissions, they typically operate around densely populated areas, where emissions are known to pose the biggest health threats.

Ferries, tug boats, and other harbor craft can be particularly dirty because they often use the same inefficient engines for decades, said Christina Wolfe, who manages the Environmental Defense Fund’s air quality program for ports. “They’re old, high-horsepower, and high-usage, and that just makes a recipe for very high emissions,” she said of ferry engines.

Some local officials are considering more straightforward solutions, like installing efficient Tier 4 diesel engines or adding onshore electricity supplies, so boats can turn off their engines while at port. Other places are taking a more ambitious tack: In rural Alabama, the Gee’s Bend Ferry operators are replacing John Deere engines with a battery-electric propulsion system, which will make it the first zero-emissions ferry of its kind in the United States. A ferry in Skagit County, Washington, may soon follow suit.

The Water-Go-Round hydrogen ferry is also representative of a larger push by the global shipping industry to clean up dirty fuel-burning ships. In April, the International Maritime Organization adopted a landmark deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, a policy that will require a massive uptake of zero-emissions vessels.

Passenger ships are often first to deploy cutting-edge ship technologies because they consume far less fuel and power than ocean-going vessels. Ferries typically keep close to shore, making it easier to recharge batteries or refill hydrogen tanks. And ferry operators face strong public pressure to clean up because they carry throngs of passengers who — unlike lifeless box containers — inhale the diesel fumes, hear the growling engines, and see the noxious black plumes rising from exhaust funnels.

A boat like Water-Go-Round won’t have such concerns.

Fuel cells combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Unlike diesel engines, they don’t emit any carbon dioxide or health-threatening pollutants — only a little heat and water vapor. “I’m going to drink the exhaust,” pledged Escher, who is investing in the new ferry, in addition to operating it.

Hydrogen itself isn’t always “zero-emissions.” The most common methods for producing hydrogen today require fossil fuels — and thus result in some greenhouse gases. But more facilities are starting to produce “green” hydrogen with renewable electricity or biogas.

The idea to build Water-Go-Round came from an extensive 2016 study by Sandia National Labs. Researchers established that a high-speed passenger ferry powered by hydrogen fuel cells was feasible from a technical, regulatory, and economic perspective. Around two dozen early ship projects already deploy the technology, primarily in Europe.

Joseph Pratt, who co-authored the Sandia study, is now the CEO of Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine, one of several partners in the CARB grant project.

“We’re at the point where we’ve studied it enough, we’ve figured out how you can do it,” Pratt said from San Francisco. “Now we just have to do it.”

The ferry Zalophus cruises beneath the Golden Gate Bridge in the San Francisco Bay.Red and White Fleet

The plan is for Escher’s company, Red and White Fleet, to operate the vessel for the first three months — and eventually buy it to add to its fleet. Meanwhile, scientists at Sandia and CARB are expected to collect data on the ship’s operations, performance, and maintenance.

The $3 million CARB grant is part of California’s larger $20 million investment in zero-emissions off-road demonstration projects. The funding comes from revenues raised by the state’s cap-and-trade program. Water-Go-Round’s partners have committed another $2.5 million to help launch the vessel.

The planned ferry would carry onboard storage tanks with enough hydrogen to last about two days before a truck refuels them at port. Lithium-ion batteries and electric motors will round out the ship’s power system. Pratt said the goal is to use green hydrogen supplies when possible.

Marine fuel cells face several hurdles to wider adoption. The technology is still relatively expensive, and shipbuilders and maritime officials in many places may be less familiar with hydrogen than, say, batteries. If successful, a project like Water-Go-Round could nevertheless drive interest in fuel cells and hydrogen — particularly where officials or companies are seeking to curb maritime pollution, said Alan Lloyd, the former secretary of California’s Environmental Protection Agency.

“People are going to want to follow that lead,” said Lloyd, a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.

A similar narrative is already playing out with battery-powered ferries, after Norway launched a fully electric car ferry in 2015.

Dan Berentson, the director of public works in Skagit County, in northwest Washington, said his team is closely following developments in Scandinavia, where more electric ferries are expected to ply the fjords. Skagit County officials are now hoping to build their own electric boat to replace their county’s clunky 39-year-old ferry. If all goes to plan, it could launch in 2020.

“Our hope is that the industry will embrace this,” Berentson said.


Maria Gallucci is the 2017-2018 Energy Journalism Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.

Excerpt from – 

A ferry that runs on hydrogen fuel cells is coming to San Francisco

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, Landmark, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A ferry that runs on hydrogen fuel cells is coming to San Francisco

NIMBYs could ruin Berkeley’s best chance of fighting climate change

My hometown, Berkeley, has a long history of making sweeping gestures at the bete noire of the moment. It called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. It made mobile phones provide radiation warnings. And back in the 1980s, it declared itself a nuclear-free zone.

But now Berkeley has a foe that it could actually do something about. This week the city declared a state of “existential climate emergency” and said it plans to eliminate all city greenhouse gases as soon as possible. The city also pledged to start drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, turning itself into a so-called “carbon sink” by 2030. It hasn’t defined how it will do this.

“Steadily rising temperatures have brought intensified wildfires, drought, and storms that have displaced and threatened thousands of people in California, and millions more around the world. We must act now,” said Cheryl Davila, the city councilwoman who proposed the resolution.

This is the kind of commitment governments around the world would be making if they actually took climate change seriously. Berkeley deserves kudos for taking this first step. The question is, will they take the next step? There are plenty of obstacles in the way: NIMBYs, town politics, and the powerful inertia of the status quo.

Cities that have pledged to eliminate their carbon emissions really can make a difference. In April, researchers found that cities in California can prevent a major portion of the state’s emissions all by themselves. But doing so would require huge changes, including a political reorientation.

The researchers looked at Berkeley specifically and found that the most significant way for the city to shrink its carbon footprint was by building more housing — filling in parking lots and vacant areas.

Building housing is the most significant way Berkeley can shrink its carbon footprint.Jones et al.

The problem is, it’s fashionable to say you support housing in Berkeley, then add a list of conditions and caveats that would make it very hard to to build anything. One of Berkeley’s subway stations is surrounded by a massive surface parking lot, which could turn into condos. But at the first community meeting to discuss the idea in March, neighbors lined up to oppose that change. The city council later opposed a state bill that would have made it easier for the regional rail system to build new housing.

Filling in cities with denser housing makes them more walkable, reducing the distances people have to travel and making transit and bike lanes more effective. Building more housing also allows more people to move into these environmentally friendly cities. Berkeley has traditionally put proposals for new apartment buildings through an exacting and expensive series of public hearings that can stretch on for years. The politics in Berkeley, and in many cities, usually favors existing residents.

Take this week’s meeting, in which the council pledged to eliminate emissions. Minutes earlier, the council had advanced regulations that would ensure new buildings didn’t mess up the views of existing residents. That would add another hoop for any housing development to jump through.

It’s understandable that many people want to keep their neighborhoods from changing. After all, they moved to Berkeley because they liked the way the city looked. As a result, things have remained pretty static. The current population stands at around 121,000; in 1950 it was 114,000. If Berkeley really is going to embrace the low carbon transformation, it will also have to change its approach to housing. And it would magnify its effect if Berkeley embraced development and allowed a lot more people to move in and enjoy a low-carbon lifestyle.

That’s just the first of many difficult political fights Berkeley faces. Dr. Janice Kirsch, an activist working with Climate Mobilization who was at the city council meeting on Tuesday, said campaigners are up to the task. “Now begins the hard work. We plan to show up to the city council meetings and hold their feet to the fire. We intend to be relentless.”

See the original article here:

NIMBYs could ruin Berkeley’s best chance of fighting climate change

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NIMBYs could ruin Berkeley’s best chance of fighting climate change

We Are All Stardust – Stefan Klein & Ross Benjamin

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

We Are All Stardust

Scientists Who Shaped Our World Talk About Their Work, Their Lives, and What They Still Want to Know

Stefan Klein & Ross Benjamin

Genre: History

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: November 5, 2015

Publisher: The Experiment

Seller: Workman Publishing Co., Inc.


World-leading natural and social scientists shed light on their discoveries and lives in conversation with an award-winning science writer When acclaimed science writer Stefan Klein asks Nobel Prize– winning chemist Roald Hoffmann what sets scientists apart, Hoffmann says, “First and foremost, curiosity.” In this collection of intimate conversations with 19 of the world’s best-known scientists (including three Nobel Laureates), Klein lets us listen in as today’s leading minds reveal what they still hope to discover—and how their paradigm-changing work entwines with their lives outside the lab. From the sports car that physicist Steven Weinberg says helped him on his quest for “the theory of everything” to the jazz musicians who gave psychologist Alison Gopnik new insight into raising children, scientists explain how they find inspiration everywhere. Hear from:Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on selfishnessAnthropologist Sarah Hrdy on motherhoodPrimatologist Jane Goodall on animal behaviorNeuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran on consciousnessGeographer Jared Diamond on chance in historyAnd other luminaries!

Continue reading here:  

We Are All Stardust – Stefan Klein & Ross Benjamin

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are All Stardust – Stefan Klein & Ross Benjamin

The Best Composting Options for City Dwellers

Growing up, my family had an incredible compost mound in the backyard. Month by month, the pile ? with the help of a mass of worms and other critters ? turned?eggshells, vegetable peelings and even chicken droppings from our flock?into a rich black compost which my dad would later use to?give his plants a boost.

Idyllic as it sounds, there’s no way this method would ever work in an apartment (What landlord would be cool with a rotting compost pile in the corner of the living room?), which is why many city dwellers assume composting is totally out of reach. That’s just not true! With the green movement growing stronger every day, companies and individuals alike are stepping up to find composting solutions that work well in small spaces.

But before we get into what I consider the best small-space?options for city dwellers, let’s first take a look at three great?reasons to compost in the first place:

  1. Apply nutrient-rich compost?to houseplants and patio?containers to help the plants grow tall and strong. Anything you don’t use can be shared with friends or donated to a community garden in your area.
  2. Limit the amount of waste you send to landfill by making productive use of kitchen scraps (35 percent of the average garbage can is filled with wasted food). Save scraps in your freezer in the intermediate.
  3. Reduce your greenhouse gas emissions. The?same food waste that is filling up your trash can will later emit methane in the landfill, a greenhouse gas that’s increasing the rate of global climate change. Eek!

Now onto the good stuff. Here are four?of the most effective?composting options you have available to you if you live in an apartment, tiny house or similar urban situation, ordered from least to most complex.

Option #1:?Compost Collection

Many large cities have started adding compost pickup to their waste collection services. Composting not expressly listed? See if you can opt in individually on the waste management company’s page, or look into privately-owned services.

Pros:?Compost collection is convenient and trouble free. Plus, you’re supporting local business!

Cons:?Paying for compost pickup year round can be expensive.

Option #2: Countertop?Composting

Countertop?composting is beyond simple. All you have to do is get a container with a tightly-sealed lid?and start saving?your scraps bit by bit. I highly recommend that you crush or shred them before adding to the bin.?Layer scraps with a scoop of new soil and dry natural papers (newspaper works perfectly) once a week and mix frequently.

Pros:?Countertop composting is hassle free and inexpensive.

Cons:?Fruit flies can be trouble. Saving scraps in the freezer can help with this!

Option #3:?Compost Tumblers

If you’re fortunate to have a good-sized balcony or patio, a compost tumbler might just do the trick! Tumblers are fully sealed to preserve the heat energy produced by decomposition and protect against vermin, and are equipped with a turning mechanism to help aerate and mix the scraps. They’re also bigger than vermicomposting bins (see below) so you can compost in larger amounts.

Pros:?Tumblers are tidy and efficient ? perfect if you have the space!

Cons:?These can be hard to rotate/mix when full and require careful ratio management.

Option #4:?Vermicomposting (a.k.a. Worm Composting)

Ready to get serious about indoor composting? Vermicomposting with redworms is the way to go. Adding worms to your compost setup helps replicate the?outdoor environment, allowing nature to take its course a little more easily, and they don’t require any turning like tumblers do.

Pros:?Vermicomposters quickly and easily process household?waste, inside?or outside.

Cons:?Worms need to be protected from the elements?and compost on a small scale.

Additional Resources

If you’d like to get a more in-depth look at small-space composting, I highly recommend that you check out the book Compost City: Practical Composting Know-How for Small-Space Living. It’s very comprehensive. Best of luck!

Related Stories:

3 Ways Becoming a Minimalist Will Improve Your Life
Minimalism is a Debt-Demolishing Lifestyle (Here’s Why)
How to Lead a Nearly Zero-Waste Life

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

Originally posted here: 

The Best Composting Options for City Dwellers

Posted in alo, bigo, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Best Composting Options for City Dwellers