Tag Archives: organization

Why It Makes Sense to Kill Baby Giraffes (Sorry, Internet)

Mother Jones

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

A second Danish zoo has announced that it might kill a male giraffe. The news comes just days after the internet exploded with outrage when Marius the 18-month old giraffe was dispatched with a bolt gun and dissected in front of an audience that included children, before being fed to the lions at the Copenhagen Zoo. In a dark twist, the next potential euthanasia candidate, at the Jyllands Park zoo, is also named Marius.

The media circus began with protestors outside the Copenhagen Zoo on Sunday and a petition signed by 27,000 people to rehouse Marius in one of several zoos that had already indicated that their doors were open.

Then came the death threats to Bengt Holst, the zoo’s director of research and conservation. And the emotional opinion pieces.

As this debate rages, it’s crucial to remember that Marius was not just an exotic attraction: he was part of a larger conservation program that breeds animals with the specific goal of maintaining the diversity of each species’ gene pool.

Continue Reading »

Visit site: 

Why It Makes Sense to Kill Baby Giraffes (Sorry, Internet)

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why It Makes Sense to Kill Baby Giraffes (Sorry, Internet)

What the State of the Union Missed

back

What the State of the Union Missed

Posted 29 January 2014 in

National

Viewers of last night’s State of the Union address got the impression that President Obama supports an “all of the above” approach to America’s energy policy. But despite this rhetoric, the President’s own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to cut back on renewable fuel in 2014 by slashing obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard. This proposal threatens severe economic and environmental effects: drivers will pay billions in increased fuel costs, oil companies stand to increase their profits by more than $10 billion and, according to a recent analysis, 30 million additional metric tons of carbon dioxide will be released into the air as a result of increased petroleum consumption. That’s the equivalent of 5,600,000 more cars on the road.

By signaling a retreat on renewable fuel, the Administration is also threatening the immense progress the industry has made toward commercialization of advanced fuels like cellulosic ethanol. This map, based on data from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, details 68 facilities and more than $5.9 billion of investment in the fuels of tomorrow:

We hope the Administration and the EPA listen to the thousands of comments sent by farm families, small business owners, labor groups and environmental advocates in defense of renewable fuel and revise their proposal for the sake of a clean energy future.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Visit link – 

What the State of the Union Missed

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the State of the Union Missed

Free trade deal on solar and wind could hurt the environment

Free trade deal on solar and wind could hurt the environment

Shutterstock

Pssst … hey, foreigner, you wanna buy some green?

Government leaders huddling with business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos agreed on Friday to remove tariffs on so-called “environmental goods.” Unfortunately, that agreement could end up warming the globe and harming the environment.

If a “joint statement regarding trade in environmental goods” that was signed by the U.S. and 13 other countries evolves into a binding World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, then the container ships and trucks that crisscross the globe could start hauling more solar panels, wind turbines, and other such goodies from factories to consumers across international borders.

“We are convinced that one of the most concrete, immediate contributions that the WTO and its Members can make to protect our planet is to seek agreement to eliminate tariffs for goods that we all need to protect our environment and address climate change,” the joint statement says.

We’re talking about some serious green here. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which describes such an agreement as a high priority for the U.S., says total global trade in environmental goods is worth $955 billion a year — and that 86 percent of that involves the signatories to the joint statement. Some countries apply tariffs of more than a third to such products.

On the face of it, that could seem to make some sense. So why isn’t everybody buying it?

For starters, it’s worth remembering that continuing to limit such trade would help green-collar jobs flourish closer to where the environmental goods are actually used. That would help communities everywhere embrace their own renewables revolutions, while also reducing carbon emissions from shipping and trucking.

But the problems go deeper than that. The protectionist government of India sees the agreement as a straight-up ruse — an effort to boost free trade that’s masquerading as environmental do-goodism. India’s position starts to make sense once you consider the broad list of products that would be included under the agreement. Here’s Ilana Solomon, the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade program director, with the details in a blog post:

[I]f you dig into the list of products whose tariffs would be reduced or eliminated — the starting point for the WTO negotiations — you’ll see that many would actually harm the environment.

Incinerators, for example, are used to burn waste material and release toxic chemicals and byproducts into the air, water, and ground. Secondly, steam generators are found in equipment used in dirty fuel-production processes such as nuclear and coal-fired power plants that pour harmful toxic chemicals into the air we breathe and emit climate-disrupting carbon pollution. Also, centrifuges, which are used to filter and purify water for a variety of reasons, can also be used in the production of oil and tar sands — dirty fuels which should be on their way out as more clean energy comes online in America.

It’s great that the world’s most powerful people say they want to help the environment. But, as Solomon writes, “the key to unlocking clean energy is developing home-grown approaches to renewable energy production and manufacturing that lift up and protect workers within and outside of the U.S.”


Source
Joint statement regarding trade in environmental goods, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Trade in Environmental Goods May Not Actually Be So Good, Sierra Club
U.S. Trade Representative Froman, Fellow Trade Ministers Plan New Talks Toward Increased Trade in Environmental Goods, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

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

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

,

Climate & Energy

Follow this link:  

Free trade deal on solar and wind could hurt the environment

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Free trade deal on solar and wind could hurt the environment

Recycle Denim Through Jan. 31 and Help Insulate Homes

Now through Jan. 31, if you drop off your old denim at a Fresh Produce store, you’ll receive a discount and the old denim will be turned into insulation. Photo: Shutterstock

Recycling your old blue jeans obviously benefits the environment, but now through the end of January, if you recycle your jeans at a Fresh Produce retail store, it will also benefit you and communities in need.

Fresh Produce, a national apparel brand for women, is teaming up with Cotton Incorporated, the marketing and research company for cotton, and Blue Jeans Go Green, a denim recycling initiative, to make this happen. When you return your old denim — any style, any brand — to one of Fresh Produce’s 24 stores this month, you’ll receive 15 percent off Fresh Produce’s new denim line, KUT. Then Blue Jeans Go Green will turn the old denim into housing insulation, which will be donated to communities that need it.

“We love the bright colors Fresh Produce apparel is known for and we know that their customers will love this unique program that gives new life to unwanted denim,” Andrea Samber, co-director of strategic alliances for Cotton Incorporated, said in a press release. “By donating jeans and other denim items to Blue Jeans Go Green, Fresh Produce customers are not only helping to divert textiles from landfills, they are helping provide housing insulation to communities in need and getting a discount on new denim purchases at Fresh Produce.”

While this partnership between Fresh Produce and Blue Jeans Go Green is new, the denim recycling program has already made quite an impact. To date, more than 600 tons of denim has been diverted from landfills by Blue Jeans Go Green, and the organization has insulated more than 1,000 homes across the country with their UltraTouch Denim Insulation. Blue Jeans Go Green has also partnered with many organizations, including universities and Habitat for Humanity chapters, to help accomplish its goals.

The denim Blue Jeans Go Green collects is turned into UltraTouch Denim Insulation, made by Bonded Logic Inc. Photo: Bonded Logic

Blue Jeans Go Green has received more than a million pieces of denim thus far, and you can add to this number by dropping your old jeans off at a Fresh Produce location through Jan. 31. If you’re interested in recycling old denim but don’t live near a Fresh Produce store (find locations here), you can also mail your old jeans to Blue Jeans Go Green directly.

earth911

Visit link: 

Recycle Denim Through Jan. 31 and Help Insulate Homes

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Panasonic, PUR, Safer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Recycle Denim Through Jan. 31 and Help Insulate Homes

The Cause That Paul Walker Remained Dedicated to Until the Moment of His Death

Mother Jones

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

Paul Walker, best known for starring in the popular Fast and Furious franchise, died Saturday in a car accident in Valencia, California. He was 40.

It would be difficult to make the case that Walker was a particularly influential or exceptional actor. But he was a fine action star and was decent in his heavier dramatic fare. But beyond his on-screen credentials, all available evidence suggests that Walker was, up until the moment he died, a celebrity who genuinely cared about the world around him—someone who used his celebrity for worthy causes.

According to a statement posted to the actor’s Facebook fan page, Walker died “in a tragic car accident while attending a charity event for his organization Reach Out Worldwide.”

Reach Out Worldwide, formed by Walker in 2010, is a 501(c)(3) that provides rescue and recovery aid in the wake of major natural disasters. The group supplements rescue efforts with its own team of paramedics, doctors, and search-and-rescue professionals. Reach Out Worldwide has lent its services to disaster-relief efforts in the Philippines, Alabama, Indonesia, Chile, and Haiti. “I’d made a few runs into Port-au-Prince and was negotiating with the army to give me baby formula, tents, extension cords,” Walker told the Daily Telegraph, an Australian tabloid newspaper, in 2011. “I was hustling for everything.”

Here’s his explanation for why he started Reach Out Worldwide:

Because of my travels with work and pleasure, a lot of the times disasters would strike in areas that I’d been. You think of the faces—they might not be people you’re in contact with but you can’t help but wonder how that family was you had dinner with. That stuff starts crossing your mind and you feel so helpless. I would be consumed with anger, like, “Fuck! I wanna be there, I wanna do whatever I can.” One of my best friends had heard it too many times and ultimately he just held me accountable. He punked me out: “So you gonna pack your bags and go to Haiti and help out or what?”

“When the shit hits the fan,” Walker continued, “that’s when you actually see the best in people.”

Hours, one of the last films Walker starred in, is scheduled for a mid-December release. It’s a fitting send-off for Walker: The film is set in a hospital in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, with Walker playing a father desperately trying to protect his newborn daughter.

Here’s a clip of Walker and the Fast & Furious 7 cast encouraging fans to help victims of Typhoon Haiyan:

Continued here – 

The Cause That Paul Walker Remained Dedicated to Until the Moment of His Death

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Cause That Paul Walker Remained Dedicated to Until the Moment of His Death

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Mother Jones

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

Sugar kills. The delicious white crack has been linked to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. So what’s a person with a sweet tooth to do? Artificial sweeteners are a tempting choice, since they don’t have calories or rot your teeth, and they’re recommended for people with diabetes. But some of the fake stuff comes with its own potential health risks: Links to cancer in animal studies, reported side effects of dizziness and headaches, and exacerbated stomach problems, to name a few. And in one case, an artificial sweetener that the FDA had proposed banning was kept on the shelves after an aggressive advertising campaign from the pro-sweetener lobbying industry. Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, tells Mother Jones that, “We always encourage people to make informed choices by reviewing the credible research available.” So without further ado, here’s everything you need to know about the safety of your favorite fake sugar.

1. Stevia (Brand names: Truvia, PureVia)

Truvia.com

What is it? Stevia is short for Stevia Rebaudiana, a plant from the Chrysanthemum family that grows in parts of Brazil and Paraguay. The compound that makes the Stevia sugar is extracted from the leaves. It’s used in the EU, East Asia, Russia, Mexico, Israel, and many South American countries, and is about 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? In the 1990s, the FDA rejected Stevia as a food ingredient after research linked it to reproductive problems and possible genetic mutations in rats. In 2008, the FDA approved a specific formula of pure Stevia—Rebaudioside A. PureVia and Truvia both contain the Reb A version of Stevia, which is FDA-approved. The FDA recommended daily dosage is no more than 1.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, for healthy adults. You’d need to have at least 29 Truvia packets a day to exceed that.

What do the experts say? If your Stevia isn’t made from Reb A—like, for example, the whole-leaf extract version that’s sold at natural food markets and labeled as a “dietary supplement”—it hasn’t been vetted for safety by the FDA. For Truvia and PureVia, the FDA concluded with “reasonable certainty that Reb A is not harmful under its intended conditions of use” based on studies it looked at concerning reproductive, blood pressure, and toxicity effects. Although scientific studies in the 1960s and 1980s found that Stevia-derived products decreased fertility in female rats and potentially led to mutations, the FDA concluded that those problems didn’t apply to Reb A, based on additional research. (The World Health Organization has also determined that Reb A has no cancer link.) The FDA did note that one form of Stevia was deadly to rats at a dose of 15,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, but that’s an enormous amount of Stevia. Atalanta Rafferty, a spokesperson for Truvia, says that “A panel of independent experts reviewed a dossier of all available toxicity and safety information relevant to Truvia stevia leaf extract, and concluded that Truvia stevia leaf extract is safe.” Pura Via says on its website that, “An extensive library of more than 85 studies exists for Reb A and other components of the stevia plant which supports Reb A’s use in tabletop sweeteners.”

2. Aspartame (Brand Names: Equal, NutraSweet)

Soap.com

What is it? Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol, all of which are found in common foods. It’s about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? It was approved in the United States for limited use in 1974. But if you’re taking more than 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day, you’re exceeding the FDA’s recommended daily limit. (A 165-pound person would have to be drinking more than 20 cans of diet coke to exceed that.)

What do the experts say? Aspartame has been controversial for decades. In 1987, the Government Accountability Office investigated the FDA after the sweetener was approved. It determined that the “FDA adequately followed its food additive approval process,” but noted that 12 of the 69 scientists interviewed by GAO expressed “major concerns” about aspartame’s safety.

In 2006, cancer researchers in Bologna, Italy, released the results of a $1 million, seven-year study of the use of aspartame in rats. The team found that, at a dosage equivalent to a 150-pound person drinking at least four 20-oz bottles of diet soda daily, the sweetener caused cancer in the animals. But the FDA shot down the study, noting that the researchers wouldn’t give them all of their information, and found major shortcomings in the data that was available. According to the FDA, five other cancer studies found that the sweetener was safe. The American Cancer Society says on its website, “Aside from the possible effects in people with phenylketonuria a rare genetic disorder, there are no health problems that have been consistently linked to aspartame useâ&#128;&#139;” but adds that “research continues.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest recommends that Americans avoid it on the basis that the independent studies have found that consumption of aspartame causes cancer in rodents (although again, not in humans), and it’s been anecdotally linked to other health issues. In a 2002 FDA report, reported aspartame side effects included nausea, heart palpitations, headaches and depression, among other things. NutraSweet and Equal both say that its products are very safe. “Aspartame offers one simple step in helping people move closer to achieving a more healthful diet,” notes NutraSweet’s website.

3. Sucralose (Brand Name: Splenda)

Splenda

What is it? Sucralose is a chemical that’s produced by chemically reacting sugar with chlorine. It’s about 600 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? Sucralose was approved in 1998. The FDA recommended daily dose is 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

What do the experts say? There have been more than 110 studies on sucralose over a 20 year period, and the American Cancer Society says the studies have shown “no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest says that “sucralose is safer than aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, and cyclamate,” but notes that people with inflammatory bowel disease and other gastrointestinal issues should try avoiding the substance, since it’s been known to aggravate symptoms (Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, says that this finding “is not consistent with the extensive data base on sucralose and its more than 20 years of safe use.”) In 2008, Duke University researchers also found that Splenda can harm intestinal bacteria, although that study was funded by a pro-sugar lobbying group, and Ballman says that “no regulatory agency has acted on the results from that study.” In 2012, the same controversial research team in Italy that busted aspartame announced that sucralose increases cancer in rats, but the results of the study have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. “In contrast, more than 110 studies have proven the safety of Sucralose. Worldwide authorities, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and the World Health Organization, have reviewed these studies and confirm that results show no link between sucralose and any form of cancer,” says Ballman.

4. Saccharin (Brand names: Sweet’N Low)

Amazon

What is it? Saccharin is made from benzoic sulfilimine, a chemical compound that was accidentally discovered in 1879 when a professor, Constantin Fahlberg, was analyzing coal tar at John Hopkins University. He spilled saccharin on his hands and later noticed that the bread he was eating at dinner tasted sweeter, according to Elmhurst College. Saccharin is 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? Saccharin has been around since before the FDA governed food additives, but the FDA has put the acceptable daily limit at 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. A 150 pound person could consume 340 milligrams of saccharin per day, which is equal to more than 48 12-ounce servings of Diet Wild Cherry Fanta.

What do experts say? In the 1970s, tests showed that high doses of saccharin caused bladder stones in rats, which could lead to bladder cancer, particularly in male rats. Studies after that found similar results. Initially, the FDA proposed banning the substance—but on Congress’ recommendation in November 1977, the FDA kept it on shelves, with warning labels that the sweetener was found to be a carcinogen. According to Christopher Foreman, Jr.â&#128;&#139;, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a number of congress members fought against actually banning the substance, pushed along by the Calorie Control Council, a sugar substitute and diet-food lobbying group, which “launched an advertising campaign ridiculing both the FDA and the studies on which it based its decision.” In 1991, the FDA finally stopped proposing to ban the sweetener, and in 1996, the warning labels were done away with. In 2000, the US National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens finally removed saccharin from its list. According to the National Cancer Institute, “the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” Stephanie Meyering, a spokesperson for Sweet’N Low, says, “Saccharin is the one of the most thoroughly tested food ingredients in the world and it has the longest safe human consumption record among non-nutritive sweeteners.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn’t convinced and puts it on its list of substances to “avoid.”

View post – 

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

After Judge Gives Rapist Probation, Alabama Rape Crisis Center Pushes to Change Law

Mother Jones

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

In the wake of an Alabama judge’s decision to give Austin Smith Clem probation for three felony rape convictions, a network of rape crisis centers in Alabama is pushing to change state law so judges are prevented from handing down such lenient punishments in the future.

In an email to Mother Jones, Janet S. Gabel, the executive director of Crisis Services of North Alabama, says that her organization is “appalled by the judge’s decision to not send Mr. Clem to prison.”

“We are concerned about the message this sends to rapists and victims in Limestone County,” she notes. “I will be asking the Alabama Coalition Against Sexual Violence and the District Attorney’s Association to join us in changing the wording of the state statute so that in the future, a convicted rapist will not be sentenced to community corrections but instead will receive an appropriate sentence for such a heinous crime.”

Continue Reading »

See original article: 

After Judge Gives Rapist Probation, Alabama Rape Crisis Center Pushes to Change Law

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on After Judge Gives Rapist Probation, Alabama Rape Crisis Center Pushes to Change Law

Oil refineries in Louisiana have accidents almost every day

Oil refineries in Louisiana have accidents almost every day

bengarland

Well, OK, Louisiana’s oil refineries don’t have accidents every single day. Just six days a week on average. Actually, to be specific, 6.3 days a week.

Last year, the 17 refineries and two associated chemical plants in the state experienced 327 accidents, releasing 2.4 million pounds of air pollution, including such poisons as benzene and sulfur, and 12.7 million gallons of water pollution. That’s according to a report published Tuesday [PDF] by the nonprofit Louisiana Bucket Brigade, which compiled the data from refineries’ individual accident reports.

Nearly half of the accidents were triggered by the weather, including Hurricane Isaac. Nearly a third were the result of equipment or operational failures. The remaining 12 percent were caused by power outages.

“Year after year our state gets the pollution and the oil industry gets the profit,” said Bucket Brigade director Anne Rolfes.

The findings are grim, but they may actually understate the problem. The nonprofit claims many refinery accidents are underreported or covered up, as the Baton Rouge Advocate reports:

Rolfes said she and Louisiana Bucket Brigade know this is the case because workers tell the organization about the accidents or incidents that don’t show up on the records.

One example involves a release of materials at ExxonMobil’s Baton Rouge facility where there was an initial report of at least 10 pounds of benzene as required by law within an hour of the release.

It turned out the release was more than 31,000 pounds.
The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association responded by questioning the credibility of the report and saying the industry is “making strong environmental progress.”

If managing to operate safely almost one day a week is your definition of “progress.”


Source
Bucket Brigade: Air pollution increases at refineries in 2012, The Advocate
Mission: Zero Accidents, Louisiana Bucket Brigade
New Report: Pollution from Louisiana Refineries Increasing, Louisiana Bucket Brigade

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

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

,

Climate & Energy

View original post here: 

Oil refineries in Louisiana have accidents almost every day

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oil refineries in Louisiana have accidents almost every day

4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week

‘Tis the season of climate denial. Be prepared.<!–more–> Your uncle, yelling at you about how global warming has stopped Jinga/Shutterstock and Jessica Robertson/USGS Leading into Friday’s upcoming release of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, climate skeptics have gone into overdrive. They’re doing anything they can to undermine public acceptance of the dangers posed by global warming, which, at least according to a leaked draft of the report, is “extremely likely” (or, 95 percent certain) to be caused by human activities. Unfortunately, much of this glut of misinformation is likely to make its way to people in your life—whether it’s your congressman, your favorite talk radio host, or even your family. Heck, this stuff might even pop up in a heated conversation over your dinner table with your Uncle Larry (who always seems to be dying to argue about climate change). To prepare you, here’s the truth about four myths you’re likely to hear about climate science and the IPCC report: Myth 1: Global warming has stopped. Perhaps the most prominent attack on climate science right now centers on the claim that global warming is “slowing down,” sometimes followed by insinuations that scientists don’t understand why this is happening, or even that they have tried to cover it up. On occasion, this attack gets stretched into the assertion that global warming has stopped entirely over the past decade and a half, or even is just plain “over.” Possibly the strongest articulation yet of the meme came from Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia, who said last week that there has been “almost no increase in temperature” in the last 40 years. Globally averaged surface temperatures, by decade (includes combined land and sea surface temperatures) World Meteorological Organization But that’s just incorrect, as the figure above from the World Meteorological Organization, marking global average temperatures by decade, clearly shows. Global warming hasn’t stopped at all. What’s actually happening is that the rate of surface warming has slowed somewhat over the past decade or more, probably because more heat has gone into the planet’s oceans. In other words, the excess heat is still here in the Earth system; it’s just not where we typically measure it. “Global warming is alive and well,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained to me last month, “but about 30 percent of the heat is going deeper into the ocean.” At the same time, an increase in volcanic eruptions also seems to have generated a slight and temporary cooling influence that’s offsetting some of the warming effect of carbon dioxide, by reflecting some sunlight away from the planet. But none of this is a reason not to worry about climate change. Climate researchers say it’s likely that this temporary global warming slowdown will soon subside and warming will snap back, perhaps stronger than before. Myth 2: Arctic sea ice is recovering. One of the most dramatic indicators of global warming was last summer’s record low in the extent of Arctic sea ice—a drop that was 18 percent below the previous low in 2007. Since nothing about global warming suggests that you break a new record every successive year, it’s not surprising that the Arctic sea ice melt was less dramatic this year. This year’s seasonal low in ice extent was merely the sixth-lowest level on record. Somehow, global warming skeptics found a way to call this good news. In particular, the Mail on Sunday in the United Kingdom ran an article hailing a “rebound” in sea ice and pronouncing that “And now it’s global cooling!” Because 2013 did not beat 2012′s record, and was only the sixth-lowest sea ice extent on record, skeptics celebrated an “increase of 60 percent.” Actually, here’s what’s happening to Arctic sea ice when you include, er, context: The decline in Arctic sea ice extent. National Snow and Ice Data Center. No wonder political psychologists have recently found that ideology can wreck your ability to do math. For a thorough debunking of sea ice misinformation, see this video with astronomer and reality-based blogger extraordinaire, Phil Plait. Myth 3: Growing Antarctic ice undermines global-warming concerns. Lately skeptics have also been drawing attention Antarctic sea ice, which just hit a 35-year record high. Rush Limbaugh actually appears to have gotten confused over this, claiming recently on his show that Arctic ice was at a record extent, before correcting himself and realizing that he meant Antarctica—the place with, you know, the penguins rather the polar bears. Visualization of Antarctic temperature changes. NASA Earth Observatory That Antarctic sea ice has been growing of late is not in dispute, but again, this is no refutation of global warming. Scientists are currently trying to figure out why Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and one theory points to stronger winds due to a stronger polar vortex—a phenomenon apparently capable of overcoming a general warming of the Southern Ocean. Overall, it is important to understand that the Antarctic is very different from the Arctic. As Michael Lemonick of Climate Central puts it: The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice. The IPCC’s leaked draft report says scientists have “low confidence” in their understanding of what’s going on with Antarctic sea ice. It also predicts, with “low confidence,” that this ice too will decline by the end of the century. In other words: Antarctica is complicated, remote, and little understood. All of which, incidentally, highlights why you should trust scientists on climate change: They know what they don’t know and are honest about it, as the Antarctica case shows. That’s why, when they express 95 percent confidence that humans are driving global warming (in the same report that confesses a relative lack of understanding of what’s happening with Antarctic sea ice), it is worth paying attention. Myth 4: Global warming won’t be a big deal; it might even be good for you. As usual, there are more- and less-nuanced climate skeptics. Among the former, one of the most popular arguments is that global warming won’t be as bad as previously thought. One recent version of this argument was articulated by British science writer Matt Ridley, who argued in the Wall Street Journal that the leaked IPCC report “dials back the alarm” on global warming. Similarly, climate change contrarian Bjorn Lomborg is now arguing that the new report will support a “moderate climate change message,” rendering “alarmist scenarios ever more implausible.” All of this is pretty hard to believe, given that IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has recently stated that when it comes to the climate issue, it’s “five minutes before midnight.” But let’s consider the arguments for a more modest global warming, starting with Ridley’s. Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist (2010), thinks global warming will be on the low end. Wikimedia Commons Ridley draws our attention to a small change to the low end scientific estimate of how sensitive the climate is likely to be to a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2007, the IPCC put the low end of this range at 2 degrees Celsius; now—at least according to the leaked draft report—it is 1.5 degrees. The upper end of the range has not changed: It is 4.5 degrees Celsius. Does this 0.5-degree shift matter? Although the rosiest scenario may have gotten slightly rosier, there’s no reason to assume we’ll be so lucky, or that global warming will be mild. Rebutting Ridley in the Wall Street Journal letters section, climate scientist John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas put it like this: Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer, whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. And there’s another problem with Ridley’s outlook. Much of his op-ed focused on how much warming we’ll see in the next 70 years or so—in fact, he argues that by 2083, the “benefits of climate change” may “still outweigh the harm.” Abraham counters that “we are already seeing economic and ecological damage, including increased precipitation in some regions, with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves and rising sea levels.” In any case, the IPCC draft report plainly says that global warming will continue well past the year 2100. That’s only the beginning. The draft report explains that we can expect some of the carbon that we’ve emitted to stay in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years and for warming to continue for “several centuries.” The report implies that over the long term, sea levels could eventually rise on the order 5 to 10 meters (other scientists have placed ithigher still). Lomborg, for his part, acknowledges that global warming is a “problem,” just a modest one. “The IPCC’s predictions do not support alarmist predictions of global temperature rise that are often in the order of 5ºC (9ºF) and 1-2 meters (3-6) feet of sea level rise—not to mention Al Gore’s 6 meters (20 feet),” he claims. Yet much of this may depend on your time frame, as we’ve seen. The upshot is that nobody can be absolutely certain which scenario for global warming in the 21st century will actually be realized. The question is, and has always been, about managing risks—risks not just for us, but risks to our children, grandchildren, and untold future generations if we leave them a badly damaged planet. Ridley and Lomborg could be right that global warming will still be relatively mild after 70 years, and will stay on the low end. But can we really take that chance? Link:  4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week ; ;Related ArticlesWTF is the IPCC?WATCH: What’s Really Going on With Arctic Sea Ice?Watch: Congressman Makes “Completely Wrong” Claim About Temperature ;

Read the article:  

4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week

Posted in alo, Casio, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, organic, organic gardening, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week

Innovative Maryland Program Provides Green Job Training

Members of the 2013-2014 Chesapeake Conservation Corps prepare the ground for planting shrubs before beginning their new assignments. Photo: Chesapeake Conservation Corps

More than two dozen young adults will spend the next year improving Maryland’s environment while getting valuable on-the-job training.

The latest class of the Chesapeake Conservation Corps program, which is administered by the Chesapeake Bay Trust and pairs young adults with conservation-minded organizations throughout the state, rolled up their sleeves and went to work last week. The job training program, created in 2010 by the Maryland Legislature, puts participants to work in areas that will advance conservation efforts and help protect local rivers, streams and the Chesapeake Bay.

“The Maryland Legislature wanted to develop a corps program that engaged young people in the conservation of natural resources,” explains Jana Davis, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Trust, which manages the Corps. “There were other programs out there, but we added the environmental piece and made it more of a mentorship-based experience.”

While other conservation corps programs typically have a crew-based approach, the Chesapeake Conservation Corps created an individual-focused program, where each participant works with an organization to accomplish conservation goals.

“Each one of the young people has a capstone project they’re responsible for,” Davis says. “It’s a way for them to build new skills, gain professional work experience, and it’s something they can use to market themselves when it’s done.”

As a result, many of the participants end up getting hired by the organization at the end of their one-year assignment. This year, 11 of the 25 participants landed full-time employment when their assignments ended in August. Among those were Ann DeSanctis, who worked as an environmental educator with the Anacostia Watershed Society, then was hired as its volunteer and project coordinator when her one-year term ended.

“This was an invaluable hands-on experience,” she says. “Being able to see how a nonprofit works, and to be able to get involved in a network like this, is so important. For me, it really helped me learn what it was that I wanted to do. It cemented in me that I am in the right field.”

Next page: The Expanding Program

earth911

Continue reading – 

Innovative Maryland Program Provides Green Job Training

Posted in alo, ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, Free Press, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Innovative Maryland Program Provides Green Job Training