Tag Archives: organic

Senate Republicans use Palestine as an excuse not to fund climate agency

by BrookeM145 Posted on April 20, 2016

Senate Republicans use Palestine as an excuse not to fund climate agency

By and on Apr 20, 2016commentsShare

This story was originally published by Huffington Post and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

More than two dozen Republican senators this week asked Secretary of State John Kerry not to provide any funding for the United States’ involvement in the United Nations effort to address climate change, saying they object to the U.N. treating Palestine as a state.

The Palestinians joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international treaty that governs action on climate change, in March. On Monday, the group of 28 senators, led by Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, argued in a letter to Kerry that — because of a 1994 law barring federal funds from being distributed to any U.N. program that grants membership to a state or organization that lacks “internationally recognized attributes of statehood” — the UNFCCC should not receive U.S. funding.

It may not be entirely a coincidence that this letter comes from a group of senators who, by and large, don’t really believe climate change is an issue the U.S. should be addressing at all.

Among the letter’s signatories: Republican Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Dan Coats (Ind.), John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Steve Daines (Mont.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), James Lankford (Okla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), John Thune (S.D.), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), David Vitter (La.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

They’re not all climate change deniers, per se. But Barrasso has said that the climate “is constantly changing” and that “the role human activity plays is not known.” Inhofe, who is chair of the Senate Committee on Environment And Public Works, wrote a whole book about how climate change is “the greatest hoax.” Rubio has spouted every type of climate denial possible. Cornyn has said he believes humans can influence the environment, but he doesn’t want the feds “in charge of trying to micromanage” the issue.

“The U.S. government does not recognize the ‘State of Palestine,’ which is not a sovereign state and does not possess the ‘internationally recognized attributes of statehood,’” the letter reads. “Therefore, the UNFCCC, as an affiliated organization of the U.N., granted full membership to the Palestinians, an organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood. As a result, current law prohibits distribution of U.S. taxpayer funds to the UNFCCC and its related entities.”

The lawmakers have some precedent for this argument. In 2011, the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization lost U.S. funding — which made up about 22 percent of its budget — after allowing the Palestinians full membership. The U.S. later lost its voting rights to the UNESCO general assembly as a result. Kerry said last year that he planned to work with Congress to restore U.S. funding to the organization.

State Department spokesperson John Kirby said on Tuesday that he was aware of the lawmakers’ letter but declined to comment further.

The Palestinians have endeavored to gradually join U.N. organizations and treaties as a way of gaining international recognition after several rounds of failed bilateral negotiations with the Israelis. The Palestinians gained non-member observer status at the U.N. in 2012, and the Palestinian flag was flown at the U.N. headquarters in New York for the first time last year during the annual general assembly, but they still lack full member status.

The Obama administration opposes Palestinian efforts to gain statehood through U.N. recognition, but the senators’ letter criticizes the administration for failing to block the Palestinians from gaining recognition within the UNFCCC.

“We urge the administration to clarify, both publicly and privately, that the United States does not consider the ‘State of Palestine’ to be a sovereign state, and to work diligently to prevent the Palestinians from being recognized as a sovereign state for purposes of joining U.N. affiliated organizations, treaties, conventions, and agreements,” the lawmakers wrote.

The United States has pledged to give $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, which was created so that industrialized countries can help developing nations address climate change. It’s seen as a pivotal part of the deal reached at the U.N. summit last December, which nations will begin officially signing this week.

The UNFCCC was created in 1992 to provide a mechanism for international coordination on addressing climate change. The United States provides funding to support the UNFCCC secretariat and other activities, as do the 196 other parties to the convention.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link:

Senate Republicans use Palestine as an excuse not to fund climate agency

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senate Republicans use Palestine as an excuse not to fund climate agency

15 Foods You Didn’t Know You Could Freeze

by Sean92Smkbcoygz Posted on April 18, 2016

Food waste continues to be a serious problem, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of food intended for human consumption going to landfill. While some of the spoilage occurs in the field and during processing and transportation to supermarkets, the vast majority happens in refrigerators, where too many items end up languishing till they rot, at which point they get tossed in the trash.

Before that happens, learn to use your freezer as effectively as possible. It acts like a giant pause button, preserving foods for later consumption. While it is recommended to eat frozen foods within three months, it doesnt mean they will go bad; they may just require some flavor boosters to taste good. (viaLove Food Hate Waste)

Did you know you can freeze almost anything?This was news to me. I used to think there were clear rules about what should go into the freezer and what should not. It turns out, thats not the case. I am a fan offreezing without plastic, which is why I do not recommend any freezer bags or plastic wrap in the following directions.

Here are some foods that you probably never knew were great for freezing:

Mushrooms:Brush off any dirt, trim the bottoms, and slice thinly. Lay on a baking sheet in single layer, freeze for 2 hours, then transfer to airtight container.

Avocadoes:Cut in half, remove stone, and freeze in airtight container. Or scoop out flesh, mash with a bit of lemon or lime juice, and freeze for nearly-ready guacamole.

Coffee:Dont dump it down the drain! Pour into an ice cube tray until frozen solid, then transfer to an airtight container or glass jar. Thaw out small quantities for baking or to boost iced coffee when the weather warms up.

Wine:Got some leftover dregs in a bottle thats been sitting on the counter too long? Freeze in an ice cube tray, then transfer to a container. Use for cooking.

Eggs:You can freeze eggs as long as you beat them or separate the whites and yolks into separate containers. Read Melissas more detailed directionshere.

Fresh herbs:Some weeks its hard to use up an entire bunch of cilantro or parsley before it starts turning black and slimy. Finely chop and freeze as-is, mixed with olive oil in an ice cube tray, or blended into pesto. The same goes for fresh ginger. If using fresh basil, you must blanch for 1 min before chopping and freezing. The plain, fresh herbs need to be thawed before using, but the olive oil cubes can get tossed in a pan or pot of soup/stew.

Garlic:Peel fresh garlic cloves and freeze whole in an airtight container. Its actually easier to chop (less sticky) when still partially frozen.

Potatoes:Mashed potatoes freeze best, but you can also freeze potatoes that have boiled for 5 minutes, then toss them in a baking pan to roast once removed from the freezer.

Milk:You can freeze cartons, jugs, and the plastic bags in which milk is sold in Canada. Alternatively, pour into an ice cube tray and transfer cubes to a container once solid. Same goes for cream, buttermilk, and yogurt.

Chips:Don’t let a bag of chips go stale. Pop it in the freezer and let defrost for a few minutes before eating.

Organic and/or natural nut butters:If you’ve stocked up because of a sale, store in the freezer if you won’t be eating it within a couple months. You can also freeze opened jars of nut butter.

Cooked pasta and rice:Freeze leftovers in an airtight container, defrost, and reheat with a few tablespoons of water. Alternatively, you can place the frozen pasta in a colander and pour boiling water over to thaw and heat simultaneously. Add sauce and you’re ready to go. It’s also possible to partially cook arborio rice, freeze, and then continue cooking later to make risotto.

Diced onion and celery:Freeze chopped fresh onions and celery in small portions to make easy additions to soups and curries. They will require some extra browning time to get rid of additional moisture.

Written by Katherine Martino. Reposted with permission from TreeHugger.

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: 

15 Foods You Didn’t Know You Could Freeze

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 15 Foods You Didn’t Know You Could Freeze

Ted Cruz Used A Line From The Aaron Sorkin Film "The American President"

by Damon40Dkvzh Posted on March 23, 2016

Mother Jones

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

It seems clear that this wasn’t plagiarism so much as an homage but it’s still weird.

It would be funny if he had said, “I’m gonna get the guns.”

See original article: 

Ted Cruz Used A Line From The Aaron Sorkin Film "The American President"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Used A Line From The Aaron Sorkin Film "The American President"

This New Bill Could Make Trump and Cruz’s Anti-Refugee Dreams a Reality

by JeannetteHuddle Posted on March 23, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Following the terrorist attacks at a subway station and airport in Brussels on Tuesday morning, GOP presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz renewed their calls for Syrian refugees and other immigrants to be banned from entering the United States.

“We need to immediately halt the president’s ill-advised plan to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz said during a Tuesday press conference in Washington, DC. “Our vetting programs are woefully insufficient.”

“I would close up our borders,” Trump said on Fox News. “Look at Brussels, look at Paris.”

This time, they may have some backing in Congress. After the terrorist attacks in Paris last November, more than 30 states mounted efforts to ban the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their communities—issuing executive orders, proposing state-level legislation, and even filing lawsuits. These efforts failed because the Constitution mandates that immigration policy be set by the federal government. Now Congress is considering a bill that would tweak federal law to make this sort of refugee obstructionism a whole lot easier.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act, paving the way for a vote on the House floor. The bill, co-authored by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), would give state and local governments the opportunity to reject the resettlement of refugees in their communities—as was proposed by more than half of states after Paris—and it would shift the responsibility from the president to Congress of setting an annual ceiling on the number of refugees. The ceiling is currently at 85,000 refugees, after a September 2015 order from President Barack Obama, but Congress could set it as low as 60,000 refugees and block the president from raising it without congressional approval. In September 2015, Obama pledged that the United States would take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016.

The measure would also allow “recurrent background security checks” of US refugees, a provision that critics say amounts to “continual surveillance” of refugees. It would also delay how soon refugees can obtain their permanent green cards—changing it from one year after their arrival to three years. The bill also requires that the Department of Homeland Security prioritize claims from refugees who fear persecution based on their religion, as opposed to those who face persecution due to other circumstances, like their race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. Religious persecution would be an unlikely claim for most Syrian refugees coming to the United States: the vast majority of them are Muslim, and Sunni Muslims are Syria’s religious majority. This is one way the bill “clearly discriminates against Muslims as the intended target,” said the Rev. John McCullough, president of the Church World Service, on a press call with reporters last week.

In advance of the House Judiciary Committee vote last week, 234 organizations—including the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and the American Immigration Lawyers Association—sent a letter to Congress opposing the legislation. They noted “the current vetting process for refugees is incredibly rigorous and includes screening by U.S. federal law enforcement and national security agencies.” Giving state and local governments a veto on refugee resettlement, they wrote, wouldn’t enhance security and would instead “codify discrimination against refugees.” They concluded: “It is simply un-American to treat persecuted individuals, who want nothing more than to start a new life in safe and welcoming communities, as criminals.”

The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Labrador, a former immigration lawyer, is convinced that current vetting processes aren’t sufficient for screening refugees from Syria. “Compared to countries where US intelligence has strong footing, many current refugees are coming from failed states such as Syria, where there is very little US intelligence presence,” he said when introducing the bill before the House Judiciary Committee last week. “The simple fact is that we do not know who these people truly are.”

If the bill reaches the Senate, it will face an uphill battle. Following the Paris attacks in November 2015, the House passed another piece of legislation that would have effectively halted the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States. In January, the Senate blocked the measure.

Read more: 

This New Bill Could Make Trump and Cruz’s Anti-Refugee Dreams a Reality

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This New Bill Could Make Trump and Cruz’s Anti-Refugee Dreams a Reality

8 Of The Best Spring Flowering Shrubs

by EsmeraldaSym Posted on March 21, 2016

Whether youre renovating your garden or just looking for a bit more color, spring is an excellent time to consider adding some new plant material. Spring-flowering shrubs are a great way to liven up a yard. If you choose the right shrub to fit your needs, youll be rewarded with a gorgeous spring display year after year.

1. Forsythia spp.

This may be one of the most flexible options for spring blooming shrubs. Forsythias can grow ten to fifteen feet tall and wide. They naturally have a beautiful, arching form when fully mature.

If you dont have space for a mature specimen, they can be pruned into a smaller, compact shrub, or even used as hedging. Make sure to prune your forsythia after it has bloomed in the spring because it will start to set next years blooms soon after the new growth appears.

They prefer full sun and may benefit from supplemental irrigation in dry areas. Lots of mulch is helpful to provide water retention and nutrients.

Hardy to zone 5.

2. Lilac (Syringa spp.)

Lilacs are very durable shrubs that prefer drier locations, such as on slopes and in well-drained soils. They also require very little feeding. A high phosphorus fertilizer in early spring will promote blooms, whereas too much nitrogen in the soil will actually reduce flowering.

Cutting off the old blossoms once theyre done will promote more flowers the next year. You can also prune lilacs as needed to either control their size or shape. They have a tendency to spread by runner shoots, which you can cut off at ground level.

The most common bloom colors for lilacs are purple and white, with yellow and bicolor varieties also available. The strength of their scent varies with each variety, but all blooms will have the classic heady lilac aroma that can drift throughout your entire yard.

Hardy to zone 3.

3. Daphne spp.

The fragrance of daphnes is what makes these plants stand out. There are many different types, and all of them smell amazing.

The rock daphnes are a group of spreading groundcovers. They grow up to ten inches tall and make attractive mounds similar to heathers. Cultivars of Daphne cneorum are commonly available in garden centers. There are also a few shrub daphnes. Most of these tend to be smaller shrubs, only getting two to four feet tall, like Daphne x burkwoodii. The occasional variety, like Daphne bhoula, can grow up to eight feet tall.

All types of daphne are quite low-maintenance. They rarely need any pruning or shaping. They appreciate moist soils with good organic matter. Daphnes are considered poisonous plants, so take care if you have pets in your yard that like to forage.

The hardiness zone varies depending on which type you choose, anywhere from zone 4 for Daphne burkwoodii, to zone 8 for Daphne bhoula.

Daphne x burkwoodii ‘Carol Mackie’

4. Witch Hazel (Hamamelis spp.)

Witch hazels may be the earliest blooming shrub of all. In many parts of the Northern Hemisphere, witch hazels may start to bloom in January or February.

They have a distinct, hairy-looking blossom that is often fragrant, depending on the variety. The species witch hazels, such as Hamamelis virginiana, tend to smell stronger than modern hybrids, like Hamamelis x intermedia Arnold Promise.

Witch hazels are understory plants in their natural habitats and tend to do better in partial, but not full, shade, and moist soil. Theyre a slow-growing shrub, with an open vase-like form that will not become too dense. They can grow up to twelve feet, although they blend easily into the background once theyre done blooming for the year.

The hardiness zone can range from zone 3 to zone 5.

5. Viburnum spp.

Most viburnums have attractive blossoms, but not all viburnums smell. Whereas the early varieties Viburnum carlesii and Viburnum x bodantense are worth planting for their spring fragrance.

Both with grow up to eight feet tall and wide over time, but can be easily pruned to shape. They prefer full sun and well-drained soil with good organic matter. Both make effective hedging plants or can stand alone as specimens.

Viburnum carlesii is a hardiness zone 4 and Viburnum x bodantense is hardy to zone 5.

Viburnum carlesii

6. Rhododendron spp.

A celebrity of spring-flowering shrubs, rhododendrons can be absolute show-stoppers for a few weeks every year. They are available in countless colors and shades to suit any taste or garden plan.

They have leathery, evergreen leaves and can grow up to twenty feet tall and wide when mature. They can be pruned back to fit into your space as well.

Rhododendrons prefer partial or full shade and a protected location that doesnt get a lot of wind. They do best in moist, acidic soil high in organic matter. A fall application of fertilizer suitable for acid-loving plants will give them an extra boost.

Most varieties of rhododendrons are not very cold tolerant, and will only be hardy to a zone 7 or 8. Although this is slowly changing as plant breeders develop cultivars that are more hardy. If you live in a colder climate, keep an eye out for hardy selections in your local garden center.

7. Flowering Quince (Chaenomeles speciosa)

These shrubs may be overlooked due to the fact they have thorns. But their show of bright white, pink or red flowers early in the spring makes them worthy of a second look. In addition, they will produce quinces in the fall. These are two-inch, round, nutritious fruit that are traditionally used in jams, jellies and baking.

If you have a place in your garden where the thorns wont be an issue, or youre looking for a good natural deer fence, flowering quince could be a great option.

They grow up to eight feet tall and wide. They can handle many different types of growing conditions, are not particular about what type of soil they grow in, and are drought tolerant once established.

Hardy to zone 4.

8. Azalea (Rhododendron spp.)

These are the smaller cousins of rhododendrons. They are often deciduous and lose their leaves in winter, unlike their evergreen relatives.

Azaleas typically grow from two to eight feet tall. If you need to prune them to shape, make sure to do this soon after the blooms have finished for the year. They will start to set flower buds for next year in the spring.

They prefer partially shady locations and can handle a bit more sun than rhododendrons. The soil should be acidic. Mulching with pine or other conifer needles can be a great way to reduce the pH if your soil is too alkaline.

The hardiness zone for azalea varieties can range from 5 to 8.

Related
A Guide to the Worlds Best Botanical Gardens
Selecting the Right Tree For Your Garden
5 Simple Ways To Get Your Garden Ready for Spring

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

See more here:  

8 Of The Best Spring Flowering Shrubs

Posted in alo, Aroma, ATTRA, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 8 Of The Best Spring Flowering Shrubs

Angels of Abundance – Doreen Virtue & Grant Virtue

by Myrna Posted on March 20, 2016

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Angels of Abundance

Heaven’s 11 Messages to Help You Manifest Support, Supply, and Every Form of Abundance

Doreen Virtue & Grant Virtue

Genre: Spirituality

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: May 1, 2014

Publisher: Hay House

Seller: Hay House, Inc.


In their travels around the globe, Doreen Virtue and her son Grant (the best-selling authors of Angel Words ) have met thousands of talented people who dream of being healers, spiritual teachers, or writers, or of opening healing centers or schools. They also long to be able to afford organic food, vitamin supplements, exercise instruction, trips to spiritual power places, and wonderful homes. However, they don’t move forward because they don’t understand how to attract the financial resources that are the basis for how the physical world operates. Doreen and Grant wrote this book to show you how Heaven can give you material and emotional support as you strive to attain your life purpose and manifest everything you desire. Each of the 11 chapters features a message from the Angels of Abundance—the specialty angels who ensure that your Divine mission here on Earth isn’t hampered by lack. Whether you wish to have more money, time, ideas, or opportunities, the Angels of Abundance will hold your hand and help you over the hurdles that have kept you from realizing your dreams—until now!

Jump to original – 

Angels of Abundance – Doreen Virtue & Grant Virtue

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, organic, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Angels of Abundance – Doreen Virtue & Grant Virtue

Clinton and Sanders Want to Restrict Fracking. Will That Make Global Warming Worse?

by AlvinMacDonnell Posted on March 9, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Could promises by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to dramatically restrict fracking actually make climate change worse?

In Sunday night’s presidential debate, both Democratic candidates came out swinging against the controversial technique for extracting oil and natural gas. Sanders was blunt. “No, I do not support fracking,” he said. Clinton was a bit less direct. She said that she would hold fracking operations to such high standards that “by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” (You can watch their responses above.)

How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change


The Ultimate Presidential Climate Matrix


Donald Trump Thinks Climate Change Is a Hoax


Marco Rubio Used to Believe in Climate Science


John Kasich Actually Believes in Climate Change. But He Doesn’t Want to Fix It.


Scientists: Ted Cruz’s Climate Theories Are a “Load of Claptrap”


How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World


Sanders and Clinton Disagree on Climate. Let’s Debate That.


Here’s One Climate Issue Cruz Actually Gets Right

While Sanders’ statement basically matched what he has said before, Clinton’s appeared to be something of a shift from her earlier positions. As secretary of state, she backed a push to get fracking operations up and running in foreign countries and called natural gas “the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today.”

Now, it appears that either Democrat could try to curtail fracking substantially.

Many environmentalists would celebrate that, but some experts are warning that when it comes to climate change, limiting fracking could backfire. To understand why, you need to know a bit of background about the complex scientific debate surrounding the issue.

Environmental activists have criticized fracking for possibly contaminating subterranean water supplies, polluting air in communities near drilling sites, and contributing to climate change. They point out that methane, the main component of natural gas, is a greenhouse gas that is up to 90 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term if it leaks into the air without being burned (though it lingers in the atmosphere for much less time than CO2).

When natural gas is burned in power plants, it produces far less CO2 than coal does. But methane leaks occur at nearly every step of the natural gas production process—from well to pipeline to storage. Right now, there’s a raging debate among scientists over whether the methane leaks from the natural gas system or the huge carbon dioxide emissions from coal are ultimately worse for global warming.

In Sunday’s debate, Clinton said that fixing the methane leaks would be a precondition for her to support fracking. Clinton and Sanders have both proposed new regulations on methane leaks that build on rules currently being formulated by the Obama administration. But both candidates say they want to go beyond simply fixing methane leaks and are actually promising to eliminate most fracking.

Here’s the problem: There’s a good chance that efforts to restrict fracking could lead to the burning of more coal. About 90 percent of the natural gas used in the United States is produced domestically, according to federal statistics; more than half of that is produced by fracking. The fracking boom has resulted in cheap gas replacing coal as the chief power source in many parts of the country. Gas now accounts for about one-third of US electricity production, up from around 23 percent when Obama took office. That growth has been matched by a decline in coal consumption.

At the same time, the country has seen a steady reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP, an indication that the economy is becoming cleaner. The rapid growth of solar, wind, and other renewables is one important factor behind that trend, as are widespread improvements to energy efficiency. But the swapping of natural gas for coal has been arguably the most vital—note how the falling blue line (coal) mirrors the rising green line (gas):

Energy Information Administration

Less fracking would mean less gas production, which would mean higher gas prices, which would likely mean that gas’ share of America’s electricity supply would fall.

“Without natural gas, it would have been very difficult to achieve the emissions reductions from retiring coal plants that occurred over the last decade,” said Rob Barnett, a senior energy analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. “Few politicians would want to turn the dial back on natural gas, if it meant we started burning more coal in exchange.”

In other words, some analysts said, if Clinton and Sanders are committed to confronting climate change, choking off the country’s supply of natural gas could be a big step in the wrong direction. That’s especially true if the drawdown of fracking isn’t paired with new policies aimed specifically at preventing a reversion to coal. Sanders has called for a national carbon tax, and both candidates have supported various incentives for renewables. But a carbon tax is unlikely to pas Congress, renewables are under siege in many states, and Obama’s plan to reduce coal consumption was recently put on hold by the Supreme Court.

“In the present legislative and regulatory environment, any severe curtailing of natural gas fracking would just lead to a bounce back of coal, not an expansion of renewables,” said Ray Pierrehumbert, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago. “A strong carbon tax or strong support for renewables and efficiency could possibly allow fracking to be phased out without causing a bounce back in coal, but that’s not the situation we are facing in the US.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Coal is ultimately in a death spiral regardless of what happens with fracking, says Mark Brownstein, vice president of climate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund, a group that generally supports replacing coal with gas.

“Any way you slice it, you have old, inefficient, highly polluting coal-fired power plants in the US, and there are all sorts of economic and political and environmental factors that bear down on them irrespective of the price of natural gas,” he said. “The simple possibility of gas prices rising doesn’t change the fundamental pressure on coal.”

Fracking faces economic pressures of its own, unrelated to regulation of methane leaks or water contamination. The boom in oil and gas production is starting to come full circle, as the saturated market drives down prices, which in turn drives down production. In 2015, gas production dipped for the first time in years; the same crash happened in oil production in response to record-low global oil prices. In other words, the fracking industry is already contracting without any help from Sanders or Clinton.

And for what it’s worth, the candidates’ threats could be kind of toothless anyway, Barnett said.

“It’s unlikely the president has the authority to impose a national ban on fracking without new legislation from Congress,” he said. “And Congress simply isn’t likely to play along.”

Source article: 

Clinton and Sanders Want to Restrict Fracking. Will That Make Global Warming Worse?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Bragg, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton and Sanders Want to Restrict Fracking. Will That Make Global Warming Worse?

Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

by MarkoMatthies56 Posted on March 2, 2016

Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

By on 1 Mar 2016commentsShare

The Senate may soon scuttle state laws that force food companies to put GMO labels on their packages. The Senate Agriculture Committee just voted 14-6 to move a bill blocking state labeling laws to the full Senate. A similar bill has already passed in the House.

Three of the nine Democrats on the Senate committee and all of the Republicans voted in favor of the bill. When the situation was reversed in 2013 and the Senate was voting on an amendment to make GMO labeling mandatory, all the Republicans and 28 Democrats voted against it. If most of those Republicans and a few of those Democrats vote against labeling now, the bill would pass. If this bill becomes a law it would quash a slew of local initiatives, including a labeling law in Vermont which kicks in July 1.

For years, anti-GMO advocates have been using the voter initiative process to put labeling on state ballots. The result has been the same every time: Food and farming companies spend loads of money campaigning against them and the initiatives fail. So activists in Vermont took a different route. In 2014, instead of using the initiative process, Vermont passed its law through the legislature. The food industry promptly sued the state and, while that case is still in the works, the judge decided not to put the law on hold. As a result, nearly every processed food item sold in Vermont will have to be labeled before July 1 (specifically, ingredients derived from mainstream corn, soy, papaya, sugar beets, or canola). That prospect is bumming out the food industry, because they would have to put cover-your-ass “may contain” labels on all their products, just on the chance that they end up in Vermont.

Advertisement

In an effort to broker a national compromise over labeling rules, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been meeting with leaders of opposing factions over the past month. But Vilsack wasn’t able to find common ground. Pro-labeling forces want a mandatory, front-of-the-box labels, while anti-labeling forces want a voluntary standard. Faced with this stalemate, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts (R) charged ahead with the current bill.

Roberts may have abandoned negotiations because the clock is ticking on Vermont’s July 1 deadline. Last week, he told the Topeka Rotary Club last that the Vermont law would cause chaos. “We have to have the USDA have a label that is standard for everybody or we’re going to have the food industry crashing and a big wrecking ball coming down,” he said.

I haven’t been able to get anyone to explain exactly why that apocalypse would occur. When I asked Roger Lowe at the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association he sent me this video of Vilsack’s explanation. Essentially, Vilsack is saying that if every state has own labeling rules, interstate food commerce would grind to a halt. But at this point there’s just one state with labeling rules, and companies could comply with a simple (if dumb) “may contain genetically modified ingredients” label on everything. The Corn Refiner’s Association estimates that simply changing the packaging design for these CYA labels would cost companies $3.8 billion, which sounds like a lot but nets out to just $50 per family of eaters (and keep in mind that this organization has an incentive to inflate its estimate).

Roberts’ bill could garner bipartisan support because GMOs don’t divide people along the usual party lines. That may seem like a bold assertion, because, among media pundits at least, the anti-GMO position is certainly associated with the left. Yet liberal stalwarts perplex those pundits by voting against GMO labeling. Why? Well, there’s abundant evidence showing that politics don’t predict the average American’s position on GMOs. When a study confirmed this lack of a partisan divide, Dan Kahan, a Yale professor who studies the way tribal affiliation affects thinking, blogged that it shows:

[for] the 10^7 time that there is no political division over GM food risk in the general public, despite the constant din in the media and even some academic commentary to this effect …

Ordinary Americans — the ones who don’t spend all day reading and debating politics — just don’t give GM food any thought. They don’t know what GM technology is, that it has been a staple of U.S. agricultural production for decades, and that it is in 80 percent of the foodstuffs they buy at the market.

Kahan goes on to predict that Congress will pass a bill blocking state labeling laws, that Obama will sign it and that less than 1 percent of the U.S. population will notice.

But what about those polls showing that big majorities of Americans want GMO labels? Won’t that scare senators straight? The problem with those polls is that, if you ask people whether they want any kind of label they generally say, sure, why not! You are proposing a positive, without discussing the negatives. It’s like offering people free newspapers — hey, want more information? Big majorities of survey respondents also say, nonsensically, that they’d like mandatory labels for food containing DNA.

Pro-GMO advocates worry that a label will become the mark of Cain. People might see labels, and think, I don’t know what this is, but it must be bad!  And it won’t matter if the GMOs in question are ones that primarily lined the pockets of big agribusiness or primarily helped small farmers grow food more sustainably.

Many anti-GMO advocates agree that it would be the mark of Cain, and want labels expressly for the purpose of campaigning against GMOs.

In the middle are people like me, who think that labels will normalize, rather than stigmatize, GMOs. Also in the middle is Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, who voted against this bill. She supports a federal standard that would block state labeling laws, but she also wants to honor the desire for transparency. So she wants a federal law that would make GMO labeling mandatory but unobtrusive. For instance, companies could put GMO information on their website, rather than slapping a skull and cross-bones warning sign on the front of every box.

Stabenow could be the key to this whole thing, because she is a key wrangler of Democratic grain-belt votes. I’m inclined to think that Roberts needs to compromise with Stabenow to get this passed. On the other hand, if most Republicans and a few more Democrats sign on, this could sail through the Senate, even without her help.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here:

Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

Natural Beauty Skin Care: 110 Organic Formulas for a Radiant You! – Deborah Burnes

by Myrna Posted on March 1, 2016

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Natural Beauty Skin Care: 110 Organic Formulas for a Radiant You!

Deborah Burnes

Genre: Health & Fitness

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: February 23, 2016

Publisher: Callisto Media Inc

Seller: Callisto Media, Inc.


&lt;h4&gt;&lt;q&gt;Deborah has been making custom products for me for years and I have absolutely loved the results. &lt;em&gt;Natural Beauty Skin Care&lt;/em&gt; is an extraordinary resource for people who want to achieve the same results at home.&lt;/q&gt;—Kyra Sedgwick, actress and producer&lt;/h4&gt; &lt;p&gt; Deborah Burnes, founder of &lt;em&gt;Sum&lt;/em&gt;body Skin Care, brings her beauty-insider knowledge and eco-friendly, celebrity-loved products to &lt;em&gt;Natural Beauty Skin Care.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Whether you’re a homemade beauty product pro or recently joining the natural skin care revolution, let &lt;em&gt;Natural Beauty Skin Care&lt;/em&gt; be your guide to creating all-natural skin care products to achieve glowing, radiant skin, hair and nails. Deborah shares not only the how-to but also the &lt;em&gt;whys&lt;/em&gt; for choosing homemade beauty. Her simple, budget-friendly, and effective skin care recipes include treatments for face, body, and hair—from decadent homemade beauty treats like Honey &amp; Chia Seed Cleanser, Coconut Body Butter, Argan Oil Shampoo, and more.&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;With &lt;em&gt;Natural Beauty Skin Care you’ll:&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Explore easy-to-make natural beauty recipes to eliminate chemicals from your routine.&lt;/li&gt;   &lt;li&gt;Indulge yourself from head to toe, with nourishing body butters, hydrating hair masks, decadent bath bombs, and more.&lt;/li&gt;  &lt;li&gt;Discover the science behind natural ingredients.&lt;/li&gt;  &lt;/ul&gt;

Continue at source:

Natural Beauty Skin Care: 110 Organic Formulas for a Radiant You! – Deborah Burnes

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, GE, LG, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Natural Beauty Skin Care: 110 Organic Formulas for a Radiant You! – Deborah Burnes

Netflix and Grill: Michael Pollan Takes His Food Evangelism to the Small Screen

by DanaOFerrall Posted on February 20, 2016

Mother Jones

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

“Fire,” the first episode of a new docuseries called Cooked, opens with sweeping shots of a barren landscape in western Australia, dotted with huge, roaring fires. At dusk, Aborigine families gather around the flames to roast bush turkeys and goannas—a large Australian lizard—beneath the glowing embers. A mother baptizes her toddler in the smoke as it rises.

The four-part docuseries that premiered on Friday is based on the New York Times best-selling book Cooked. Its author, science writer Michael Pollan, has built an empire writing books (The Omnivore’s Dilemma, In Defense of Food, Food Rules) that argue Americans should eat simple, home-cooked foods. Each episode in the Netflix series is inspired by the four elements used to transform raw ingredients into food—fire (barbeque), water (braising), air (bread making), and earth (fermentation). Each episode has a different director and follows the everyday cooks profiled in Pollan’s book, as well as the writer’s own culinary quests.

In “Fire” we meet Ed Mitchell, the pit master from North Carolina who grills hogs on the barbeque with techniques passed down from his great-grandfather, and we watch Pollan attempt to create a whole-hog cookout himself. Later, in the Earth episode, Noella Marcellino, a nun in Connecticut with a doctorate in microbiology, separates curds and whey in a large wooden barrel to make cheese.

Pollan’s prolific body of work asks readers to question what and how much they eat. (On an Inquiring Minds podcast in 2014, he argued that the Paleo diet is nowhere near how hunter-gatherers actually ate.)

But Cooked is different. Instead of evangelizing about which foods to eat, Pollan urges us to prepare our own.

“I’m hopeful that there will be a renaissance in cooking,” Pollan says in the series. “If we’re going to cook, it’s going to be because we decide we want to, that it is important enough to us, pleasurable enough to us, necessary enough to our health and our happiness.”

“Cooked” premiers on Netflix February 19. Photo courtesy of Netflix

Much of the information presented in the Cooked Netflix series won’t be new to foodies who follow Pollan’s work. It touches on the rise of industrialization and processed food, the beneficial gut microbes that thrive when we eat fermented food, and the importance of eating meat that came from ethically treated animals. However, even viewers obsessed with health food trends will be seduced by the series’ vibrant scenes, which provide a glimpse of how cultures around the world make—and break—their proverbial bread.

We’re told that the United States spends less time on cooking than any other nation in the world, and Pollan stresses that “time is the missing ingredient in our recipes and in our lives.” Yet the series doesn’t offer viewers detailed advice about how to increase how much they cook. Cooked offers only a few general tips, such as doing meal prep on Sundays.

Pollan got blowback for an essay he wrote in the New York Times in 2009 that suggested that Betty Friedman’s 1963 The Feminine Mystique got women out of the kitchen and was linked to the decline of home cooking. In Water, the episode that addresses the realities of processed foods and the restaurant industry, Pollan and director Caroline Suh said they were careful how they approached the issue.

“The collapse of cooking can be interpreted as a byproduct of feminism, but it’s a lot more complicated and a lot more interesting than that,” Pollan said in an interview. “Getting it right in the film took some time, but it was important to tell the story of the insinuation of industry into our kitchens, and show how the decline of cooking was a supply-driven phenomenon.”

Richard Bourdon makes his sourdough with three ingredients: wheat, water, and salt. Photo courtesy of Netflix.

Whether it’s men or women who wear the apron, the message of Cooked is clear—we should make home-cooked meals a habit, for our bodies and for our souls.

Jessica Prentice, author of Full Moon Feast and coiner of the term “locavore,” once wrote that if someone cannot drive we find it incomprehensible, yet if someone admits to not knowing how to cook, we see it as normal.

Cooked aims to get us back in the driver’s seat.

“Is there any practice less selfish,” Pollan asks in Cooked, “any time less wasted than preparing something nourishing and delicious for the people you love?”

The series premiered at the Berlin Film Festival on February 16 and on Netflix on February 19.

View original article:

Netflix and Grill: Michael Pollan Takes His Food Evangelism to the Small Screen

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Netflix and Grill: Michael Pollan Takes His Food Evangelism to the Small Screen