There is a certain curiosity about the way water is used in Phoenix, which gets barely eight inches of rain a year but is not necessarily parched. View this article: An Arid Arizona City Manages Its Thirst ; ;Related ArticlesAlgae-Engineering Joint Venture DisbandsScientists Find Canadian Oil Safe for Pipelines, but Critics Say Questions RemainBP Challenges Settlements in Gulf Oil Spill ;
Link:
READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS
Nine Do-It-Yourself Energy Experiments That Prove Your Thoughts Create Your Reality
Genre: Self-Improvement
Price: $3.99
Publish Date: January 28, 2013
Publisher: Hay House
Seller: Hay House, Inc.
E-Squared could best be described as a lab manual with simple experiments that prove reality is malleable, consciousness trumps matter, and you shape your life with your mind. Yes, you read that right. It says prove. The nine experiments, each of which can be conducted with absolutely no money and very little time expenditure, demonstrate that spiritual principles are as dependable as gravity, as consistent as Newton’s laws of motion. Rather than take it on faith, E-Squared invites you to prove the following principles: There is an invisible energy force or field of infinite possibilities. You impact the field and draw from it according to your beliefs and expectations. Your connection to the field provides accurate and unlimited guidance. The universe is limitless, abundant, and strangely accommodating.
See more here:
Say goodbye to this stuff.
Everybody get ready to grab your swimsuit and head north. The latest melting projections by government scientists suggest that the Arctic could be nearly ice-free during summer in seven years — or maybe even sooner.
But before you get all excited about the novelty of taking a dive into waters that once harbored year-round ice, we should warn you that the seven-year thing is a worst-case scenario. But even the best-case scenario published in a recent scientific paper projects that the summer ice will virtually disappear during the first half of this century.
(Also, we should warn you that the water will still be pretty damned cold, if not quite as cold as before. Also, you might get run over by a container ship. Or coated by an oil spill.)
There is substantial conjecture — and concern — over when the Arctic will finally lose its summertime coating of ice to the effects of climate change. Some scientists have previously suggested that it could happen by 2016.
So NOAA scientists recently used three common techniques for predicting when the summertime ice would disappear from everywhere in the Arctic, with the exception of Greenland and a spot just north of the Canadian Archipelago, and compared the results. Their methods: They extrapolated sea ice volume data; they assumed rapid melting events such as occurred last summer and in 2007 would occur again; and they used climate models.
“At present,” the scientists wrote in a paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, “it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another.” More from the paper:
The large observed shifts in the current Arctic environment represent major indicators of regional and global climate change. Whether a nearly sea ice-free Arctic occurs in the first or second half of the 21st century is of great economic, social, and wildlife management interest. There is a gap, however, in understanding how to reconcile what is currently happening with sea ice in the Arctic and climate model projections of Arctic sea ice loss.
The use of these different techniques resulted in forecasts of nearly ice-free summers sometime around 2020, or around 2030, or around 2040. Massive pool party y’all!
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: Climate & Energy
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Original article:
Posted 13 May 2013 in
Tom Philpott of Mother Jones recently published a sensationalist, irresponsibly reported blog post insinuating that ethanol production is linked to E. coli contamination. This post ignored public health trends, as well as a wealth of peer-reviewed data on the safety of DDGS, and cherry-picked one study that did not demonstrate a causal link.
There have been a number of peer-reviewed independent studies on food safety that have addressed the issue of distillers grains, a co-product of ethanol production, and they all come to the same conclusion: using DDGs, a high quality animal feed, does not have the health impacts that Philpott alleges. Most importantly, a new study out of Kansas State University (Dec 2012), the same university that published a study in 2007 that the article cites, corrected their previous work, saying:
“There were no significant differences in the concentration of E. coli O157:H7 between animals receiving DDGS and the one receiving only steam-flaked corn. Neither the prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 positive samples, nor the concentration of the bacteria in the positive samples, were affected by the presence or absence of DDGS in the diets. These observations concur with the absence of statistical differences in the colonization rate and prevalence of E. coli O157:H7 in the gastrointestinal tract between the two groups of animals. There was no relationship between the use of DDGS in the diet and the level of E. coli O157:H7 shedding in cattle in this study.”
There are a wealth of additional, recent peer reviewed studies highlighting the fact that there are no e. coli health risks associated with DDGs:
(May 2013) published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, the study says: “DDGS had no effect on the STEC O157 prevalence in cattle populations.”
(Jan. 2013) published in Journal of Food Protection, the study says: “Feeding diets containing DDGS had no effect (P > 0.05) on the intensity or duration of fecal shedding of E. coli O157:H7 compared with the standard barley grain finishing diet.”
(Dec. 2012) published by the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, the report says: “Neither corn distillers grains, nor soy glycerin, in steam-flaked corn-based diets supported shedding of E. coli O157:H7.”
(Feb. 2012) a study by Canadian Dept. of Ag published in the Journal of Animal Science says: “Inclusion of DDGS in cattle finishing diets had no effect on fecal shedding (P = 0.650) or persistence (P = 0.953) of E. coli O157:H7.”
There are more studies to cite, but suffice it to say Philpott selectively picked an old study to create a sensationalist story where there is none.
A quick look at public health trends supports the truth outlined in the above studies: E. coli incidences found in ground beef sampling have dropped by more than 90% in the last decade. This is the same timeframe that DDGs production has increased many times over:
DDGs are not only safe, they are among the highest quality feed available. They are an export item for the US, helping to support economic growth, and they are a key to meeting the rising demand for livestock across the globe. Don’t let an irresponsible journalist trick you into believing otherwise.
Fuels
Continued here:
[amzn_product_post]
“Americans’ Priorities,” the graph is labelled. Underneath, four issues, and the extent to which Americans feel they require urgent action, as suggested to Pew Research. And so:
The most important issue for Congress to address this year, supported by 70 percent of Americans? The long-term deficit. Least urgent of the four? Climate change. Incorrect, America.
From USA Today:
There is bipartisan agreement on this: Dealing with the budget deficit is urgent.
That’s a change. When Obama took office in 2009, during a cascading financial crisis, Americans put deficit reduction in the middle of a list of policy goals in a Pew poll. Now it has risen near the top. Seven of 10 Americans (including not only 81% of Republicans but also 65% of Democrats) say it is essential for the president and Congress to enact major deficit legislation this year. …
When asked which of four issues was most pressing — the deficit, guns, immigration or climate change — 51% chose the deficit, three times that of any other issue. However, there were some significant differences by race and ethnicity. Hispanics were inclined to choose immigration as the most critical issue; African Americans chose guns.
Here’s the breakdown on the urgency question by political party (compared to “everyone”, which represents the entire pool of respondents).
Even most Democrats don’t see an urgent need for action on climate change — fewer than half say it’s a priority for this year. That’s astonishing.
When Pew asked about specific climate policies, the results were a bit more heartening. (You can read Pew’s summary of the data here.)
For example, people were asked which energy policy is more important: developing alternative energy sources or expanding fossil fuel production. Fifty-four percent of respondents said alternative source development was more important; 34 percent (including a majority of Republicans) said fossil fuel exploration was.
Pew also notes that this is a shift in the recent trend. Support for alternative energy had declined from 2011 to 2012. Now, it’s shot back up.
In part, it’s a function of strong support among young people — which, of course, also correlates to political party.
Pew’s final climate-related question was whether or not respondents support stricter limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, one of the few things Obama can do unilaterally (even if he’s shown no inclination to do so).
Surprisingly, over 60 percent of respondents favor such action — and Republicans were nearly split, 42 percent in favor compared to 48 percent against.
What does all of this mean? Not a lot. Obama has support to act on developing alternative energy and regulating carbon dioxide emissions — at least until the full weight of opposition and Fox News punditry bears down. If there’s one thing this data suggests, it’s that the views of Americans, typically disinterested in the fine mechanics of government, are shaped by pundits and media focus. There’s absolutely no reason for Americans to consider the deficit more important than gun control or immigration, and especially no reason for them to consider the deficit more urgent than climate change, a problem that grows worse by the minute. But that’s not what is discussed on the news and on news websites. And so that’s not what’s reflected in this poll.
We all know the next step. This poll, blurred by insider priorities, will be held aloft by insiders as proof they were right. And some time, hopefully in the next few years, Obama and Congress will actually take steps to fight climate change.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Link:
America thinks we need to fix the climate — after we deal with the deficit
Here’s the latest installment in the great war between Tesla Motors and The New York Times, launched after a Times reporter chronicled a troubled test drive of Tesla’s all-electric sedan. For background, see here; for additional commentary, just turn on your computer. There have been dozens of posts on the subject, from the Times’ public editor, GigaOm, Gawker, MIT Technology Review, Jalopnik. But the place to start is where our previous piece left off: with a post on the Tesla blog responding to the Times’ claims, written by chair Elon Musk.
You may have heard recently about an article written by John Broder from The New York Times that makes numerous claims about the performance of the Model S. We are upset by this article because it does not factually represent Tesla technology, which is designed and tested to operate well in both hot and cold climates. …
When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology. There was no need to write a story about existing Superchargers on the East Coast, as that had already been done by Consumer Reports with no problems! We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity. As a result, we did not think to read his past articles and were unaware of his outright disdain for electric cars. We were played for a fool and as a result, let down the cause of electric vehicles. For that, I am deeply sorry.
It is not clear for whom Musk feels sorry, but it is quite clear whose feelings have been hurt: his own. It’s clear in the emotion behind his post, emotion that he bolsters with nine bullet-pointed counterarguments, five graphs of data from the car, two Google maps, and one annotated graphic from the Times article.
The Tesla Model S, in a sunnier climate.
Those reading Broder’s review were given the impression of a vehicle not ready for the rigors of highway travel — if not of a vehicle that had a flawed power-management system. Both Broder and Musk suggest that the cold weather during Broder’s journey from D.C. to the Boston area reduced its range, but Broder suggests that the car failed to give him accurate information about that reduction.
Oddly, this central premise is only a small part of Musk’s response — a response that, as the above-linked Gawker article notes, has been seen by many as definitive, a data-based refutation of Broder’s claims. After all, look at this chart:
Broder’s article claims he set his cruise control at 54; it was actually at 60. He said he was driving 45 on the highway; it was more like 53. At one point he exceeded 80 miles an hour! The impression you’re meant to get here is that Broder misled his readers into thinking he took extreme measures to avoid draining the car’s battery and still it failed. Nope, says Musk, pointing at the chart. His numbers were off!
What’s missed, though, is the implication of that data for an objective reader. Broder did set his cruise control at about 60 mph for about 100 miles. He spent another 50 driving at just over 50 mph. Almost all of Broder’s driving was on highways, as was intended in the test drive. Is it actually a win for Musk to show that Broder drove at 50-60 mph on the interstate instead of 45-54?
Musk’s post uses a common rhetorical tactic: overwhelming the audience with small refutations of unimportant points to give an impression of overall victory. The Atlantic Wire has a graph-by-graph breakdown of how strong and important each point is to Musk’s case; on the whole, they aren’t that important.
One commonly cited point from Musk’s post suggests that Broder drove in circles at a rest-stop charging station. “When the Model S valiantly refused to die,” Musk writes, Broder “eventually plugged it in.” Musk offers a graph that shows no circling, no distance, just faster and slower driving. Broder has already responded to this claim: He was circling the rest stop trying to find the charging station. The graph loses.
Elon Musk is a smart man. He understands the damage the Times review did to his company’s reputation. He’d hoped, as noted above, that the paper would report “on future advancements in our Supercharger technology,” those free charging stations that Broder tried to reach — not do a trial that Consumer Reports had already completed to his satisfaction. When Broder and the Times didn’t comply, Musk responded forcefully and, if the online sentiment is any gauge, successfully.
Even by the standards of Musk’s data, the problem lies with Broder’s experience, not his reporting. It’s not a driver’s job to make sure the car works perfectly; it’s Musk’s job, Tesla’s. The problem isn’t whether Broder spent 47 minutes charging the car instead of 58, as Musk ridiculously suggests; it’s that electric vehicles are competing with perceptions and infrastructure determined by traditional cars.
Broder is expected to release a response to Musk’s criticisms this afternoon. It will once and for all clearly settle who the winner is in this fight: gasoline.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Source:
Tesla offers incomplete, misdirected response to New York Times critique
Last year, American farmers saw the worst drought in more than half a century. At the same time, some disaster aid programs went unfunded. Why? Blame the expired Farm Bill, of course.
Crop insurance and emergency disaster loans are still available to farmers and ranchers, but other relief programs designed to help during times of drought and other disasters saw their funding end more than a year ago.
But now Congress is considering a bill to reinstate that aid “until” a new farm bill happens. (Hahaha [weep].) From the Governing blog:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is sponsoring legislation that would retroactively restore those disaster relief programs for 2012 fiscal year as well as the rest of the 2013 fiscal year while Congress works on creating another long-term farm bill.
“These livestock disaster programs expired in September 2011, leaving our livestock producers with no safety net,” Baucus said in introducing his bill. “For over a year and a half, through one of the worst droughts in recent memory, our producers have been left to fend for themselves.”
In addition to helping to pay for dead livestock, the legislation also provides disaster relief for things like destroyed orchard trees and vines, and it helps cover losses not covered by crop insurance.
There are five disaster programs — all created in the 2008 farm bill — that are among the 37 programs that are missing out on funding. Because Congress hasn’t re-authorized them, losses due to disasters that occurred after September 2011 aren’t covered
This is good news for troubled U.S. farmers, but not the greatest for the Farm Bill in total, which looks to be going nowhere fast. Could we get some disaster relief for that, too?
Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for
.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Taken from –
Smog in China.
My wife and I used to have an annoying neighbor. There were various ways in which he was annoying — he would holler every Sunday during the Saints games and would stand outside talking on his cell phone at all hours of the night. But most annoying was the smoking. He’d stand under our bedroom windows and smoke, the smell drifting into our apartment. Of all of his infuriating tendencies, this was the worst.
But at least what wafted into our clothes and lungs while we slept wasn’t toxic smog. That’s the problem Japan is having with its neighbor to the west. From Agence France-Presse:
The suffocating smog that blanketed swathes of China is now hitting parts of Japan, sparking warnings Monday of health fears for the young and the sick.
The environment ministry’s website has been overloaded as worried users log on to try to find out what is coming their way. …
Air pollution over the west of Japan has exceeded government limits over the last few days, with tiny particulate matter a problem, said Atsushi Shimizu of the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES).
Prevailing winds from the west bring airborne particles from the Asian mainland, he said.
These particulates are the same sorts of dust and soot that set records two weeks ago in Beijing. They’re deeply unhealthy, leading to asthma, other lung afflictions, and even heart attacks. While the pollution in China has inspired a cottage industry of solutions — canned air, house-sized domes, special face masks — such innovation is likely little consolation to the Japanese.
Nor is China’s pollution likely to stop in Japan. We’ve noted before that perhaps as much as a quarter of particulate pollution in California originates in China. It’s not entirely clear how much of the state’s air pollution, often detected by satellites, ends up at a breathable height. Today NASA is flying over the state’s Central Valley at various altitudes in an effort to determine how much particulate (and other) pollution is at ground level. The planes probably won’t detect China’s most recent pollution, given that it has just reached Japan, but some particulates from across the Pacific can certainly be expected.
A NASA plane flies over Fresno.
There’s actually a straightforward solution to this. I would encourage Japan and California to send a doctor’s note to their landlord (the U.N., I guess?) saying they’re allergic to China’s pollution. And, if that doesn’t work, simply move. It won’t be easy, but trust me, it works.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Excerpt from:
As of last week, 95 percent of Colorado was under severe drought conditions. A reminder: It is December.
That’s an improvement since early September, when the entire state was in severe drought. At this rate, the problem will be resolved in … oh, five years.
The effects of the drought have been felt broadly — but the damage done to sheep farmers has been particularly acute.
From The New York Times:
“For the sheep industry, it’s the perfect storm,” [rancher John] Bartmann said, glancing out his office window here at a bleating sea of wool. “The money is just not there.”
Many ranchers are laying off employees, cutting their flocks and selling at a loss, and industry groups said a handful had abandoned the business entirely. Mr. Bartmann has trimmed his flock of 2,000 by one-third. With prices down more than half since last year and higher costs for gasoline and corn, Mr. Bartmann said he expected to lose about $100 for every lamb he sold. …
In a slow-motion disaster, a drought covering more than 60 percent of the country scorched corn stalks into parchment, dried up irrigation ponds and turned farm fields into brittle crust. Farmers begged local governments to let them tap aquifers. Scores of ranchers dumped their livestock at drought auctions.
Farmers say they are still paying near-record prices for corn and hay to feed their livestock through the winter. And if abundant snows do not come to replenish streams and coax new grass from the ground, they worry that next summer could be even worse than last.
The still-green White River Valley, Colo.
The drought struck at a particularly bad time — and as is often the case in food production, Big Ag played a role in how severely it affected ranchers.
The drought withered grazing grounds, killed off young lambs and dried up irrigation ditches, and a glut of meat and imported lambs from New Zealand helped send prices plummeting.
But some ranchers and officials in Washington believe that the deck was stacked against the sheep ranchers by the small number of powerful feedlots that buy lambs, slaughter them and sell them to grocery stores and restaurants. Even as prices farmers received fell to 85 cents a pound, consumers at supermarkets were paying $7 or more a pound for the same meat.
Meanwhile, some of the groundwater that’s left is being polluted by oil and gas extraction. From The Denver Post:
Oil and gas have contaminated groundwater in 17 percent of the 2,078 spills and slow releases that companies reported to state regulators over the past five years, state data show. …
Most of the spills are happening less than 30 feet underground — not in the deep well bores that carry drilling fluids into rock.
State regulators say oil and gas crews typically are working on storage tanks or pipelines when they discover that petroleum material, which can contain cancer-causing benzene, has seeped into soil and reached groundwater. Companies respond with vacuum trucks or by excavating tainted soil.
Contamination of groundwater — along with air emissions, truck traffic and changed landscapes — has spurred public concerns about drilling along Colorado’s Front Range. There are 49,236 active wells statewide, up 31 percent since 2008, with 17,844 in Weld County. …
“There is an impact,” [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] environmental manager Jim Milne said, reviewing the groundwater data. “We don’t know if it is unreasonable or not.”
If it helps to clarify, here’s our assessment of unreasonable: a single drop of water polluted with benzene in the midst of an historic drought.
Colorado is increasingly on the front lines of the water wars. As the climate continues to warm and drought conditions become the norm, how states use and conserve water will become issues of life and death.
And not just for sheep.
Drought and Economy Plague Sheep Farmers, New York Times
Drilling spills reaching Colorado groundwater; state mulls test rules, Denver Post
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.
Read more:
,
Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories
Taken from:
Drought hits Colorado ranchers, and polluting oil drillers deliver another blow
Libros
