Tag Archives: should

NBC’s weak climate questions help make the case for a climate debate

the youth doth protest just enough

Climate activists protest at the DNC headquarters ahead of the first primary debate

Ten candidates will take the stage at the first official Democratic National Committee debate tonight in Miami, Florida. But a question already looms over the festivities: Should the DNC host a climate-themed debate?

Original post:  

NBC’s weak climate questions help make the case for a climate debate

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on NBC’s weak climate questions help make the case for a climate debate

The Most Environmentally Friendly Ways to Dispose of Dog Poo

If youre a dog parent, you know that cleaning up after your pup is a must. The big question, though, is how to dispose of your dogs poop. At first, it might sound like a no-brainer. Since poop is completely natural and biodegradable, you probably assume that throwing it in the garbage (usually wrapped in a biodegradable doggie bag) is no big deal. Unfortunately, thats not actually the case. Read on to discover why this tactic isnt great for the environment, and what you should do instead.

The Problem with Biodegrading

The truth is, even completely compostable items do not biodegrade when they are placed in landfills, as theres no oxygen present to kickstart the process. So, neither your dogs droppings nor the biodegradable doggie bag are going to break down completely if theyre relegated to the garbage.

Another issuewhen poop breaks down (if it gets the chance to do so at all), it releases methane gas. This is precisely why (well, one reason why) factory farms are such a huge burden for the environment.

What About Flushing?

The EPA, on the other hand, recommends flushing your dogs poo down the toilet. However, this comes with some pretty big problems, too. Water isnt exactly an expendable resource, and with water waste being a huge problem, most of us dont want to waste the 1.6 gallons of water we use every time we flush the toilet.

Additionally, many states here in the U.S. (especially California) are currently in a state of drought. Water conservation is an important practice, and flushing the toilet every time your dog poops is hardly environmentally friendly.

What You Should Do Instead

If you have a small dog and can conceptually use the toilet to dispose of his or her droppings, Grist recommends doing to in one swoop. Wait until youve used the toilet yourself, close the lid, head out to the yard to gather some waste, and flush it all together (provided there isnt way too much stuff in the toilet!).

Another option is to set up a pet waste digester. The Bark recommends punching holes in an old garbage can, cutting off the bottom and positioning it in your yard away from areas where you generally spend time (so as to eliminate the presence of unpleasant smells). Add a septic starter and a little water to the concoction, and throw doggie do in as needed. The holes poked into the bin will allow oxygen to degrade the matter, and eventually, itll provide a nice layer of compost for the yard area around it. Just make sure not to use this compost in your veggie garden!

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

Link – 

The Most Environmentally Friendly Ways to Dispose of Dog Poo

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Most Environmentally Friendly Ways to Dispose of Dog Poo

Postal Contraceptives Are the Future

Mother Jones

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

When we last met, both the federal government and the Little Sisters of the Poor had submitted their homework assignments to the Supreme Court on the issue of health coverage for contraceptives. Should the Sisters be required to fill out a form saying they declined contraceptive coverage? That would be cooperating with evil. Should they be required to do nothing, with only their insurance company required to provide notification? That has problems too. Still, the briefs had been submitted and the court now had its second chance to do its job and decide the issue for good. Instead we got this:

The court punted the issue back to lower courts, and said its unanimous ruling “expresses no view on the merits of the cases.” In the unsigned opinion, the court emphasized: “In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.”

They have decided nothing. Nothing! Without Anton Scalia around, they’re flailing helplessly. Either they’re hopelessly deadlocked 4-4 and are buying time, or else they really need a foil to inspire them.

I do sort of wonder what’s going on here. I suppose it all has to do with self-insured entities, just like the feds warned. If, say, a Catholic hospital self insures and chooses not to provide contraceptive coverage, then it really doesn’t matter if they fill out a form or not. Who’s going to provide the contraceptives? There’s no separate entity to do it.

I’m curious: how does this work in other countries? They have Catholic hospitals, don’t they? And Catholic charities. And so forth. And health coverage is universal, and I imagine some (most?) countries cover contraceptives in their universal coverage. What’s the Catholic Church’s take on all this? Is the United States the only country they’re mad at?

So what’s my solution? The Post Office. Hear me out. There are lots of fans of postal banking out there. I keep asking why anyone thinks the Post Office is especially well suited to the task of banking, and the usual answer is that they have lots of buildings all over the country. I guess buildings are the main qualification for providing banking services. So why not postal contraceptives too? We could train some postal workers in each Post Office to become specialized contraceptive nurses, and then provide everything free of charge right there. Pills, IUDs, implants, whatever. Are you with me on this?

Originally posted here:

Postal Contraceptives Are the Future

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Postal Contraceptives Are the Future

Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die

Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as its subcommittee on energy and power. In these roles he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is an idiot.

Well, that’s not really fair. I’m sure he’s a perfectly capable person in some capacities. In every photo I’ve seen of Barton, for example, he is wearing pants — and putting on pants is a tricky procedure that even small children have trouble with. He has also mastered the English language. The problem is just that he leverages the English language in an effort to consistently downplay the need for tighter pollution standards. (This is perhaps because he is also smart enough to have raked in $1.7 million in campaign contributions from Big Oil over the course of his career.)

He used the English language when, in 2011, he said “I’m not a medical doctor but my hypothesis is that’s not gonna happen” — where “that” is that people could die from mercury emitted by coal plants. Those who are medical doctors say it is gonna — and does — happen.

And he used it today, in speaking at an event held by the National Journal. I’d like to walk through some of those statements now. Included, for your convenience, is a rating of how stupid each statement is using our unique rating system.

This argument is a favorite of those who want to delay or obstruct legislation that seeks to limit carbon dioxide pollution. It comes in two forms: We exhale carbon dioxide, so how could it be bad? And: Plants need carbon dioxide to live, so how could it be bad? Barton seems to be going for the latter. (If you meet someone who employs the former, ask them how they’d feel about living in a world overflowing with their own feces.)

Plants also need water. Water is a life necessity. And if you get too much of it, Joe, you get scenes like this. Should we therefore regulate water? No, but we should sure as hell take precautions to make sure we’re not getting flooded out by it.

How stupid is this? Three Trumps out of five.

This is a nifty bit of footwork. (Joe Barton is also smart enough to tap-dance!) Barton escapes criticism for being a flat-out climate change denier but also avoids having to do a single thing to prevent it. The obvious follow-up question, then: Should the government invest in infrastructure that can prevent the worst effects of climate change? We’ll see how he votes on any package for Sandy relief and upgrading New York City’s defenses. But if his past votes on infrastructure are any guide, his acceptance that climate change is happening doesn’t actually extend to spending federal money.

How stupid is this? Two Trumps out of five. Politically, it’s kind of clever, if deeply immoral and hugely destructive over the long term.

In other words, Barton is saying that, yeah, yeah, the Clean Air Act did some good stuff, but it has maxed out on how much good stuff it can do.

Here, as we noted this morning, the “good stuff” is saving people’s lives. What Barton is saying in a flippant, dismissive way is that preventing thousands of early deaths and cases of lung disease is not worth the cost of asking polluters to turn down the amount they pollute — which is far short of stemming pollution entirely! This is because Joe Barton, while not a medical doctor, has done the math, tallying up a column in which he’s listed the cost of his friends and donors at Conoco and Exxon and power companies reducing their pollutants and has compared that to the various people — Joe Smith of Houston and Jane Jones of Cincinnati — and the bills they’re having to pay for chronic lung disease. And, however close it is, the cost to the companies is greater. So Joe Barton, always one who hews closely to his rigorous mathematical calculations, has no choice but to let Joe and Jane be sick. It’s only fair.

How stupid is this? Five full Donald Trumps.

In summary: These are the views of a powerful elected official, holding office in the year 2012. If you would like more information on Joe Barton and his views on the issues, see his website’s “Congressman Barton on the Issues” page, which is completely and understandably empty.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from:

Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die