GreenEnergy4.us

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

John Kasich is no better than Donald Trump on climate change

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit source:

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, Free Press, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged detroit, governor, illinois, journal, kasich, king, politics, solar, special, state, trump | Comments Off

House Republican introduces resolution to protect … magic

by SVPChandayrt Posted on March 15, 2016

House Republican introduces resolution to protect … magic

By Katie Herzogon 15 Mar 2016comments Share

Magic is in the air!

Along with six other House Republicans, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas introduced a resolution on Monday that recognizes “magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure.” His resolution reads like a Tumblr poem:

Whereas magic is an art form with the unique power and potential to impact the lives of all people;

Whereas magic enables people to experience the impossible;

Whereas magic is used to inspire and bring wonder and happiness to others;

Advertisement – Article continues below

Whereas magic has had a significant impact on other art forms;

Whereas magic, like the great art forms of dance, literature, theater, film, and the visual arts, allows people to experience something that transcends the written word;

It continues. And, please, try not to laugh. This is serious congressional business:

Whereas David Copperfield, introduced to magic as a boy growing up in New Jersey, has been named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress;

Whereas David Copperfield, with 21 Emmy Awards, 11 Guinness World Records, and over four billion dollars in ticket sales, has impacted every aspect of the global entertainment industry;

Whereas David Copperfield, through his magic, inspires great positive change in the lives of Americans;

Whereas people consistently leave David Copperfield’s live magic show with a different perspective than when they entered;

Whereas Rebecca Brown of Portland, Oregon, left a David Copperfield magic show with a newfound inspiration to pursue her lifelong, unfulfilled passion for dance;

Whereas three months after Rebecca Brown attended the David Copperfield magic show, she performed her first choreographed recital in Portland, Oregon’s Pioneer Square …

In addition to recognizing magic as rare and national treasure, the symbolic bill would “support efforts to make certain that magic is preserved, understood, and promulgated.” Whatever that means.

The best (worst?) part about this congressional waste-of-time is that while Sessions clearly believes in magic (and has a big ol’ crush of David Copperfield), he and his colleagues fail to recognize something that is happening right in front of their faces: climate change. Sessions has earned a 3 percent score from the League of Conservation Voters, and has voted against almost every piece of climate change and environmental legislation since 1997.

While we are unable to ascertain the validity of magic, it’s clear that magical thinking is alive and well. And Rep. Sessions, just in case you’re listening — how about a trick or two to deal with climate change? It might work better than waiting on Congress.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

House Republican introduces resolution to protect … magic

Get Grist in your inbox

See the article here:

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged congress, david, jersey, oregon, politics, pur, radius, republican, special, whereas | Comments Off

CDC prevents thousands of foodborne illnesses every year

by LamontLeGrand Posted on March 15, 2016

CDC prevents thousands of foodborne illnesses every year

By Suzanne Jacobson 15 Mar 2016comments Share

Humans love drama. That’s why Trump gets headlines, and Kasich doesn’t. It’s why we love Lucy and forget Ethel. It’s why we envy Sherlock and shrug at Watson, laugh at Kel and put up with Kenan. And it’s why for every foodborne illness outbreak that we freak out about, there’s a non-outbreak that we ignore. .

But it’s time to flip the script. According to a new study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prevents hundreds of thousands of cases of foodborne illnesses every year, saving the U.S. more than $500 million in the process. And it does it all with PulseNet — a nationwide network of 83 laboratories that detects and traces outbreaks by sharing information about local illnesses.

Launched 20 years ago, PulseNet is the safe and responsible Richard to Chipotle’s Tommy Boy, quietly trying to keep things together while Tommy loses his shit (foodborne pathogens cause about 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths in the U.S. every year, according to the study). And for the first time, researchers have attempted to quantify just how effective the network is at keeping us healthy and happily scarfing down ground beef and burritos.

To do so, they first identified the two ways in which PulseNet prevents illnesses: by halting outbreaks in real time through recalls, and by instigating “process changes” in industry and government that prevent future outbreaks. Then, using data from 1994 to 2009 on illnesses due to E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella — the three bacteria that PulseNet has been tracking for the longest — they found the following:

Conservatively, accounting for underreporting and underdiagnosis, 266,522 illnesses from Salmonella, 9,489 illnesses from Escherichia coli (E. coli), and 56 illnesses due to Listeria monocytogenes are avoided annually. This reduces medical and productivity costs by $507 million. Additionally, direct effects from improved recalls reduce illnesses from E. coli by 2,819 and Salmonella by 16,994, leading to $37 million in costs averted.

Not too shabby, considering PulseNet itself costs just about $7.3 million to run, according to the study. And these numbers are likely an underestimate of the network’s total impact, given that they only account for three bacterial pathogens and don’t account for monetary costs due to premature death and reduced quality of life, the researchers point out in a press release.

And of course, we’re partly to blame for all of this — antibiotic-resistant superbugs and E. coli outbreaks are more interesting than an unremarkable brunch — so happy 20th birthday, PulseNet. We don’t appreciate you like we should, but you’ve always got our backs, and for that, we thank y — wait. Did someone just say something about recalled pistachios?

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

CDC prevents thousands of foodborne illnesses every year

Get Grist in your inbox

View the original here –

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged anchor, article, food, gens, journal, king, radius, series, special, tommy, venta | Comments Off

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

by Hyatt Monien Posted on March 15, 2016

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

By Melissa Croninon 15 Mar 2016comments Share

Switching to renewable energy is meant to decrease the level of greenhouse gas emissions — a message that someone should really pass on to the European Union.

A new analysis conducted by the Ecofys Consultancy for the European Commission shows that biodiesel from palm oil can produce three times the emissions of conventional diesel oil and biofuel from soybeans can produce twice as many emissions as diesel. It’s an important finding for the E.U., where countries are pushing for 10 percent of transport fuel to come from renewable sources by 2020.

The land-use impacts of palm oil and soybeans biofuels had a major effect on their calculated footprints. The issue is twofold: Large tracts of carbon sinks, mainly forests and peatland, are clear-cut or drained to make way for giant palm or soy plantations; and new land must also be cleared to grow food that could have been planted on plots now being used for biofuels.

The report was taken down shortly after publication and a source told the Guardian that its original release was delayed due to biofuel-friendly pressure. The industry has publicly pushed back against the study’s findings, with the European Biodiesel Board telling Biofuels News that the research is based on “a model which has still not been disclosed nor validated by peers.” The board called into question the academic validity of the report, arguing that other research conducted in California showed lower values for emissions from indirect land-use changes.

If the findings of the report are accurate, the E.U.’s transport directive could have a big impact on carbon emissions. The inclusion of palm and soybean biodiesel in the E.U.’s transportation goals would add two gigatons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to green think tank Transport and Environment — annually accounting for 2-3 percent of the Europe’s total carbon output. Transport and Environment director Jos Dings told the Guardian that biodiesel is “a big elephant in the room.”

Though soybean and palm oil are considered, even encouraged, as renewable energy sources by the E.U., they are, according to the research, changing the emissions of an entire continent. With that in mind, a different, stricter, version of the word “renewable” might be necessary.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

E.U. biodiesels could be dirtier than fossil fuels, according to new report

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading:

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged board, california, carbon, environment, grist, industry, land, Ona, science, series, special, transport | Comments Off

Will Exxon face a lawsuit for denying climate science?

by LavonBales Posted on March 11, 2016

Will Exxon face a lawsuit for denying climate science?

By Melissa Croninon 11 Mar 2016comments Share

When listening to the garbled blender noises that come out of politicians or businessmen when they’re denying the scientific consensus on climate change, it’s natural to be frustrated, angry, even irate. But can you sue them?

Environmentalists and their allies in Congress are putting pressure on the Department of Justice to consider its options. In a letter sent last October, two Democratic congressmen asked the Department of Justice to investigate ExxonMobil for decades of promoting climate denial, when the company’s own scientists knew better. In a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the interesting, albeit fantastical, proposal: whether the government has the ability to bring a civil lawsuit against a company for its climate denial.

Whitehouse, a climate hawk who’s pushed for reform on environmental issues, questioned Lynch:

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected … Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme … My question to you is other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?”

Lynch answered her office is reviewing it. “This matter has been discussed,” Lynch said. “We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.”

Earlier this month, the Justice Department passed along the congressional request for a probe of Exxon to the FBI’s criminal division. When Whitehouse asked Lynch for more details on the DOJ and FBI’s role in the matter, Lynch said she’d need to get back to him.

The Exxon campaign is not the first time climate advocates have suggested taking legal action to address climate denial. Last September, 20 scientists sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking federal investigation of climate science denial under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, a 1970 law that allows civil action for alleged misconduct to be filed in state or federal court (a similar strategy was used against the tobacco industry in 1999). The implications of such a move are a point of contention for conservatives, like Walter Olsen of the Cato Institute, who argue the case could hamper advocacy and free speech.

The chances of a DOJ review leading to an actual lawsuit is slim, but even the speculation of a suit means added public pressure on the fossil fuel industry’s associated political activities. If the feds really did bring a civil suit against the fossil fuel giant, then the message this sends to climate deniers would be all the more powerful.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Will Exxon face a lawsuit for denying climate science?

Get Grist in your inbox

See original article here:

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged climate, climate & energy, clinton, general, institute, Ona, politics, special, whitehouse | Comments Off

Marco Rubio keeps digging himself a deeper hole on climate change

by JRZAnhljyrpbrtu Posted on March 11, 2016

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio speaks during a campaign event in North Charleston, South Carolina February 19, 2016. Reuters / Chris Keane

Marco Rubio keeps digging himself a deeper hole on climate change

By Clayton Aldernon 11 Mar 2016comments Share

Less than 12 hours after the Miami Republican presidential debate, Marco Rubio found himself grilled for a second time by CNN on climate change. The night before, Rubio responded to a question on climate from Miami Republican Mayor Tomás Regalado, who, as an appropriately concerned Floridian, acknowledges and cares about the science and policy causing his city’s flooding. “Well, sure, the climate is changing and one of the reasons why the climate is changing is the climate has always been changing,” Rubio said Thursday night. Which is really all you need to know to get a sense of his position on climate.

“Why not embrace the science though?” asked CNN’s Chris Cuomo Friday morning. “You didn’t speak to that specifically last night. The science to 99 percent of the community is clear. It’s something that’s seen as a future perspective. Why don’t you share it?”

“OK, there is a consensus among scientists around the world that humans are contributing to what’s happening in our climate,” said Rubio. “What there is no consensus on is how much of the changes that are going on are due to human activity, in essence the sensitivity argument.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

“You know, here’s the bottom line,” Rubio continued. “We don’t know how much of it is due to human activity, and that’s relevant in the policy world because they are asking me to support public policies that, by their own admission of the climate activists, these climate policies they want us to adopt would not have a measurable impact on the ecology or the environment now or for the foreseeable future, meaning in my lifetime, yours, or my children’s.”

It’s the kind of answer that has a whiff of nuance. Unfortunately for the senator, it’s also incorrect. Here’s what the sensitivity argument actually looks like, when adapted from the 2013 IPCC report, the world’s authority on climate science:

The probability density function for the amount of warming since 1950 attributable to human causes.

RealClimate

The IPCC explains: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by” greenhouse gas emissions and other human factors. Another way to think about it is the chance that humans are not the major cause of warming is improbably low, at less than 1 in 10,000.

But the science doesn’t tell us which policies to pursue. Climate policy is hard. Because Rubio has one thing right: Something like the Clean Power Plan won’t prevent a certain number of inches of sea level rise in his lifetime. But that’s also not the point. Climate policy requires looking past the immediate-term. For some communities, climate change is here, right now. For others, the effects won’t be felt for a century. Rubio bills himself as taking a courageous stand against consensus, but it’s more courageous to trust the science and stand up for people who haven’t yet been born.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Marco Rubio keeps digging himself a deeper hole on climate change

Get Grist in your inbox

Source:

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged anchor, carolina, environment, ipcc, king, major, marco rubio, power, radius, series, special | Comments Off

Miami GOP mayor gives Marco Rubio a chance to lead on climate, and Rubio fails miserably

by ChristopherForsh Posted on March 11, 2016

Miami GOP mayor gives Marco Rubio a chance to lead on climate, and Rubio fails miserably

By Rebecca Leberon 10 Mar 2016comments Share

Marco Rubio seemed surprised he was asked about climate change science at a Republican presidential debate held in Miami, where some 2.4 million people are at risk from rising seas. CNN moderator Jake Tapper asked Rubio to respond to the words of Miami Republican Mayor Tomás Regalado, who acknowledges the human-made threat to his city, and wants to hear his state’s senator acknowledge it, too: “Will you, as president, acknowledge the reality of the scientific consensus about climate change and, as president, will you pledge to do something about it?”

Rubio responded: “Well, sure, the climate is changing and one of the reasons why the climate is changing is the climate has always been changing,” he said, interrupted by applause. “There’s never been a time when the climate has not changed. I think the fundamental question for a policymaker is, is the climate changing because of something we are doing and if so, is there a law you can pass to fix it?”

Rubio blamed Miami flooding on its low-lying land and listed a convoluted second reason that it’s also “higher sea levels or whatever may be happening.” He continued his fact-free musings by dismissing the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. “But as far as a law that we can pass in Washington to change the weather, there’s no such thing.” The audience laughed.

Advertisement – Article continues below

Most of the time, reporters and debate moderators will leave it at that and move on to another topic. But Tapper followed up with the key detail Rubio wanted to skip over. “So just to clarify, Senator Rubio,” Tapper said, “Mayor Regalado when he talks about the reality of the scientific consensus about climate change […] he’s saying the scientific consensus is that man does contribute to climate change.” Tapper asked if Rubio would tell the man he’s wrong.

In fewer words, Rubio said, yes he would. “If we pass — if you took the gift list of all of these groups that are asking us to pass these laws and did every single one of them, there would be no change in our environment. Sea level would still rise.” In a world where we really did enact that wishlist, seas would still rise, yes, but the world would be well on its way to a more moderate path of warming.

You can watch Rubio’s full answer here:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich answered the same question, saying humans have some impact, but “we don’t know how much humans actually contribute.”

CNN didn’t bother GOP frontrunner Donald Trump for his thoughts on global warming. Though Trump brought it up on his own earlier when talking ISIS.

“We’re not knocking out the oil because they don’t want to create environmental pollution up in the air,” he said. “I mean, these are things that nobody even believes. They think we’re kidding. They didn’t want to knock out the oil because of what it’s going to do to the carbon footprint.”

None of this is even remotely true, but pesky things like facts haven’t stopped any of the GOP candidates yet.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Miami GOP mayor gives Marco Rubio a chance to lead on climate, and Rubio fails miserably

Get Grist in your inbox

Link:

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged article, climate, cnn, grist, lai, miami, Ona, special, trump, washington | Comments Off

Climate hawks endorse Bernie by yuge margin

by WCEKellyld Posted on March 10, 2016

Climate hawks endorse Bernie by yuge margin

By Katie Herzogon 10 Mar 2016comments Share

Climate Hawks Vote, a political action committee dedicated to electing leaders who prioritize action on climate change, has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

Sanders earned the Climate Hawks Vote endorsement after he won an overwhelming 92 percent of over 22,000 votes cast in the group’s online survey. This despite a plea from Clinton herself, who wrote in an email to Climate Hawks members:

My plan focuses on using the extensive authorities a President has to tackle this problem using laws already on the books, and on bringing together the diverse range of cities, states, rural communities, universities, businesses, nonprofits, and others who are committed to taking action—including local Republican leaders.

I believe it would be a mistake to assume that Republicans in Congress will get with the program in the near term—because we can’t wait for them to start paying more attention to scientists than they do to Big Oil. Eventually reality will catch up with them—but we can’t wait for that to happen. The next president has to start building on the progress President Obama has made right away because the next decade will be decisive in our ability to meet the climate challenge.

“We’re sincerely grateful to Secretary Hillary Clinton for participating in this process and making it clear how much she values our support,” wrote Climate Hawks Vote founder R.L. Miller in a statement. “We’re so glad that both contenders for the Democratic nomination say they want to stand up for science and fight to end global-warming pollution. But the best candidate for the job, ready to use every tool to fight climate polluters and Republican climate deniers, is Bernie Sanders. We need clean-energy leadership in the White House. We need a climate revolution.”

However, not all green groups have backed Sanders. The League of Conservation Voters went with Clinton, citing her “long history of strong environmental leadership.”

While both Democratic candidates acknowledge that climate change is a grave threat both here and abroad, their platforms are different. For one, Sanders has said he would end all fracking as president, whereas Clinton’s views on fracking are more qualified. Clinton has said that she would put an end to fracking on public lands, but as Secretary of State, her office encouraged natural gas production in developing nations. And she hasn’t always sounded like a climate hawk: In 2014, she said that “With the right safeguards in place, gas is cleaner than coal. And expanding production is creating tens of thousands of new jobs.”

Clinton decries Big Oil, but some environmentalists have bristled at her accepting more than $3.25 million in donations from the fossil fuel industry. In a race where fossil fuels have spent over $100 million on candidates, $3.25 million may be a drop in the golden teacup, but it’s still $3.25 million more than Sanders has taken from dirty energy.

Please

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?