Tag Archives: ultima

Mitch McConnell likes procrastinating so much, he wants the whole country to do it

by AdrianneBeaudoin Posted on March 23, 2016

Mitch McConnell likes procrastinating so much, he wants the whole country to do it

By on 23 Mar 2016 11:04 amcommentsShare

The most powerful man in the Senate isn’t interested in doing his job, and he’s telling state leaders around the country: Why should you do yours?

That man would be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose steadfast refusal to consider a Supreme Court nominee until after the election gives new meaning to the word “dillydally.” Now the Kentucky Republican, in a letter published Monday to state governors, is also urging procrastination on another important issue: climate change.

McConnell is referring specifically to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which requires states to submit plans for curbing carbon pollution from power plants an average of 32 percent by 2030. It’s the centerpiece of President Obama’s climate-fighting agenda, and McConnell has been urging states to drag their heels since the EPA issued the rule a year ago, when he told them to  “just say no.”  McConnell argued that states should refuse to submit a carbon-cutting plan to the EPA as a means of protest, even though legal experts dismissed his reasoning.

Advertisement – Article continues below

Now McConnell is emboldened by the Supreme Court’s unexpected decision in February to stay the Clean Power Plan while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decides the case. If the courts do uphold the rule, McConnell insists there is no risk for states to stop planning for implementation. “[E]ven if the CPP is ultimately upheld,” he writes to governors, “the clock would start over and your states would have ample time to formulate and submit a plan; but if the court overturns the CPP as I predict, your citizens would not be left with unnecessary economic harm.”

Legal scholars say McConnell is once again giving terrible advice. “No one knows how it’s going to play out” in the courts, New York University Institute for Policy Integrity Senior Attorney Jack Lienke (and sometime Grist contributor) told me. “All we know is the rule is stayed until this litigation is resolved, and we don’t know exactly how it’s going to be resolved.”

There’s no reason for states to assume that if they stop their work now, the “clock would start over” and their time to implement the Clean Power Plan would be extended if the rule is upheld, Lienke said. The courts could do any number of things, as could the EPA. “It is bad advice to suggest they should count on that happening. The Supreme Court orders granting the stay didn’t say anything about holding up deadlines.”

Since the Supreme Court’s stay was issued last month, 19 states have kept working toward the Clean Power Plan regs, while 19 states have halted their efforts (four states are exempt because they have so few coal-fired power plants sector). McConnell’s letter is meant to help sway the nine states still debating what to do into the procrastinator’s column.

Ironically, his advice could wind up hurting the coal-reliant states (like his home state of Kentucky) that need extra time to begin a clean-energy transition. Foot dragging might be McConnell’s speciality, but it’s no good for anything but his political machinations.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More: 

Mitch McConnell likes procrastinating so much, he wants the whole country to do it

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mitch McConnell likes procrastinating so much, he wants the whole country to do it

To Cut Ocean Trash, Adrian Grenier and Dell Enlist Filmmakers and Virtual Reality

by Myrna Posted on March 15, 2016

A push by Dell and Adrian Grenier to raise awareness of ocean problems while trying to find a use for floating plastic trash. Visit link:  To Cut Ocean Trash, Adrian Grenier and Dell Enlist Filmmakers and Virtual Reality ; ; ;

Link: 

To Cut Ocean Trash, Adrian Grenier and Dell Enlist Filmmakers and Virtual Reality

Posted in alternative energy, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Pines, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on To Cut Ocean Trash, Adrian Grenier and Dell Enlist Filmmakers and Virtual Reality

The Obama-Trudeau Climate Pledge Contains Overdue Steps to Fix Natural Gas Leaks

by Myrna Posted on March 10, 2016

President Obama includes an overdue domestic push to cut leaks in America’s vast natural gas system in a joint announcement with his Canadian counterpart. Read this article:   The Obama-Trudeau Climate Pledge Contains Overdue Steps to Fix Natural Gas Leaks ; ; ;

Visit site:  

The Obama-Trudeau Climate Pledge Contains Overdue Steps to Fix Natural Gas Leaks

Posted in alternative energy, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Obama-Trudeau Climate Pledge Contains Overdue Steps to Fix Natural Gas Leaks

Sanders and Clinton both want to crack down on fracking. Is that such a good idea?

by ChristiBrien Posted on March 9, 2016

Sanders and Clinton both want to crack down on fracking. Is that such a good idea?

By on 9 Mar 2016commentsShare

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

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

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

Advertisement – Article continues below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Information Administration

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement – Article continues below

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

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

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

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

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit source:  

Sanders and Clinton both want to crack down on fracking. Is that such a good idea?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Radius, solar, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sanders and Clinton both want to crack down on fracking. Is that such a good idea?

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

by AlvinMacDonnell Posted on March 9, 2016

Mother Jones

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

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

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

How the 2016 contenders will deal with climate change


The Ultimate Presidential Climate Matrix


Donald Trump Thinks Climate Change Is a Hoax


Marco Rubio Used to Believe in Climate Science


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


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


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


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


Here’s One Climate Issue Cruz Actually Gets Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy Information Administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source article: 

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

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

Here’s why Whole Foods’ pre-peeled oranges might not be as absurd as they sound

by AnnisWillard Posted on March 7, 2016

Here’s why Whole Foods’ pre-peeled oranges might not be as absurd as they sound

By on 7 Mar 2016commentsShare

Whole Foods Market felt the wrath of a thousand tweeters last week after Londoner Nathalie Gordon posted an image of a new store product.

It’s an orange, but an upgraded, 2.0 version that is both more wasteful and, at $6 a pound, a hell of a lot more expensive than the regular kind.

Four days after Gordon tweeted this image, it has gotten nearly 100,000 retweets, almost as many likes, and its own hashtag — #orangegate — inspired by the maelstrom. The media has widely covered the controversial new product, with headlines like “Whole Foods’ Pre-Peeled Oranges Are the Ultimate in Bourgeois Laziness” (Eater), “Whole Foods Sells Peeled Oranges In Plastic Containers, World Revolts” (Huffington Post), and my personal favorite, “Nach Shitstorm geschälte Orange in Plastikpackung vom Markt genommen,” or, “After Shitstorm, Peeled Orange in Plastic Pack Removed From the Market,” from German site Netzfrauen.

Advertisement – Article continues below

The overwhelming response to #orangegate has been, “WTF, Whole Foods?” In reaction, the company wasted no time pulling the product from its shelves, blaming a few experimental stores, and then making a rather astute joke about the whole thing.

It makes you wonder: Would the outcry have been so loud had the pre-peeled oranges been sold in cute little Mason jars?

Whether plastic or glass, #orangegate brings to mind another recent Whole Foods scandal, #asparaguswatergate, in which a store in California was busted selling three stalks of asparagus in a bottle of tap water. For $6. But unlike #asparaguswatergate, #orangegate has seen a vocal contingent of consumers defending Whole Foods. No, these aren’t lobbyists for the plastic industry or hoarders of to-go containers. They’re folks with arthritis and other disabilities.

Take disability studies scholar Kim Sauder, who wrote on her blog:

As a person with limited hand dexterity, I look at this and see an easier way to eat healthy food. I actively avoid eating oranges, not because I dislike them (they are definitely tasty) but because I have so much difficulty peeling them. Any attempt to peel an orange is likely to result in an unappetizing mess because I’ve squeezed the orange to hard while trying to maneuver it for peel removal.

I don’t have access to peeled oranges from my grocery store though I’d probably take advantage of them if I did. I do buy precut vegetables all the time because it is more convenient and safer for me to do so. …

Anything that helps make my regular acts of daily life safer and more convenient is always a plus. So I was one of a number of disabled people who pushed back against the wholesale shaming of preprepared foods.

Now, Sauder isn’t naive: She doesn’t think that Whole Foods came up with pre-peeled oranges in order to ease the lives of folks with disabilities. Whole Foods is a business, after all, and while the company may have slightly better core values than, say, Walmart, it’s still a capitalist enterprise — one that often prizes the bottom line over human suffering. But still, she has a point, and one that environmentalists must consider: Just as for too long the green movement ignored the effects of environmental degradation on minority and poor populations, they — we — have also ignored the disabled.

Whole Foods sells a lot of shit in plastic boxes, from pre-packaged salads to cut watermelon to that guacamole that costs a week’s pay but is kind of worth it. But, for the most part, we don’t bitch and moan about those. And it’s not just Whole Foods: Tons of stores use excess packaging. Take Trader Joe’s. Do those green peppers really need to be shrouded in plastic? And how are you supposed to get a feel for your heirloom tomatoes if they’re stuck in a vegetable coffin? It’s maddening. I’ve actually seen bananas wrapped in plastic — in the peel — at my neighborhood Harris Teeter before, something that enraged me so much that I stopped eating bananas. So while Whole Foods might be guilty, it’s hardly guilty alone.

We have a packaging problem in this country. That’s clear. But we also have a problem with dismissing the needs of minority populations because, too often, we don’t even see them. Whole Foods needs to do better, but the rest of us need to do better too.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Link: 

Here’s why Whole Foods’ pre-peeled oranges might not be as absurd as they sound

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s why Whole Foods’ pre-peeled oranges might not be as absurd as they sound

Abortion Rates Are Falling, But Conservatives Won’t Like the Reason Why

by happyed014 Posted on March 2, 2016

Mother Jones

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

The abortion rate is declining, but that has nothing to do with the sharp increase in anti-abortion legislation over the past decade. Instead, you can give credit to effective contraception, according to a new study.

From 2008 to 2011, the abortion rate dropped 13 percent, but it did so at a similar pace as the overall decline in the national birth rate, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank that regularly releases data on sexual and reproductive health. A new study by Guttmacher, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, states that unplanned pregnancies are occurring less frequently, but the percentage of unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion remains statistically the same. In 2008, for example, 40 percent of unplanned pregnancies ended in abortion, and in 2011, 42 percent did. But, the overall rate of unintended pregnancies dropped 18 percent between 2008 and 2011—its lowest in 30 years, according to Guttmacher.

Source: New England Journal of Medicine

The study’s authors point out that the use of long-acting reversible contraception (or LARCs) such as IUDs or implants more than tripled between 2007 and 2012. Considered by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists as the most reliable and effective form of birth control, the use of LARCs contributed to the declining unintended pregnancy rate. But poor women and women of color are still disproportionately affected; while rates are falling everywhere, they are falling less for these women, most likely because LARCs are more difficult to obtain in these communities. A different study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that rates of unintended pregnancy for poor women were two to three times the national average. IUDs are very effective, but they can be costly—according to Planned Parenthood’s website, it’s possible to pay up to $1,000 for one that lasts 12 years.

A New England Journal of Medicine study last month found that when Texas eliminated Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid public family planning program for low-income women, fewer claims were filed for contraception, and more low-income women in Texas ultimately gave birth. A number of restrictions on abortion in Texas have already shut down more than half of the state’s 42 clinics and could close 8 more.

“Supporting and expanding women’s access to family planning services not only protects their health and rights; it also reduces abortion rates,” says Joerg Dreweke, a researcher at Guttmacher and the author of the study. “The clear implication for policymakers who wish to see fewer abortions occur is to focus on making contraceptive care more available by increasing funding and stopping attacks on all family planning providers.”

Continue reading: 

Abortion Rates Are Falling, But Conservatives Won’t Like the Reason Why

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Abortion Rates Are Falling, But Conservatives Won’t Like the Reason Why

10 Reasons You Feel Old and Get Fat… – Frank Lipman

by Myrna Posted on February 23, 2016

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

10 Reasons You Feel Old and Get Fat…

And How YOU Can Stay Young, Slim, and Happy!

Frank Lipman

Genre: Health & Fitness

Price: $11.99

Publish Date: February 23, 2016

Publisher: Hay House

Seller: Hay House, Inc.


Are you tired of feeling worn out, sick, and overweight? Why is it that we experience weight gain, fatigue, aches and pains, illnesses, and memory loss as we get older? And, more importantly, do we have to? These ailments do become more common in our 30s and 40s, but they are by no means inevitable. In fact, we are perfectly capable of remaining slim and vigorous, and our brains can absolutely stay clear and sharp—if we give them what they need. The problem is that most of us don’t do that. We don’t realize what our bodies need, so we eat the wrong foods, skimp on sleep, and deprive our bodies of the movement they crave. Overwhelmed by the stresses and the pressures of our lives, we take a host of prescriptions, never realizing how they might be disrupting our body’s innate ability to heal. Most insidious of all, many of us lack the personal support and the community that we need to feel fully alive. Instead, we buy into the myth that age means decline. A pioneer and internationally recognized expert in integrative and functional medicine, Dr. Frank Lipman proves that you don’t have to feel this way. You have a choice! In his latest book, Dr. Lipman breaks through the common myths and misconceptions surrounding aging and dieting, and he zeroes in on what you need to do in order to feel your very best. His two-week Revitalize Program brings together key information regarding insulin resistance and carbohydrate intolerance, gut and hormonal imbalances, sleep disorders, medications and supplements, and community support, and features: delicious, nutritious recipes to support you along the wayhandy shopping lists and meal planssimple exercises, meditation practices, and restorative yoga sequencesinformation about powerful anti-aging and digestive supplements and vitaminsand more! Dr. Lipman also offers a lifelong Maintenance Program, so that after two life-changing weeks, you can continue on your path toward ultimate health and wellness for years to come. In just two weeks—only 14 days—you can feel so much better than you ever imagined! This is a book that you’ll want to share with your family, friends . . . and anyone else whose health you care about!

This article: 

10 Reasons You Feel Old and Get Fat… – Frank Lipman

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 10 Reasons You Feel Old and Get Fat… – Frank Lipman

RealAge – Michael F. Roizen

by Myrna Posted on February 20, 2016

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

RealAge

Are You as Young as You Can Be?

Michael F. Roizen

Genre: Health & Fitness

Price: $0.99

Publish Date: November 16, 2010

Publisher: HarperCollins e-books

Seller: HarperCollins


What is aging? Aging is not a mysterious metaphysical phenomenon. Aging happens in the particulars. Your arteries become clogged. Your arthritis flares up. Age is not just a chronological measurement; it&apos;s the rate at which the primary internal guardians of health–your cardiovascular and immune systems–decline. While your chronological age is fixed, your biological age may be years older–or younger–depending on a combination of factors. RealAge offers a revolutionary, systematic program that calculates the aging effect of more than 100 different health behaviors–ranging from diet and medication to stress control and chronic smoking–and enables you to assess your own biological age. Most important, it shows you how to design a specific path to improving or reversing your own aging trajectory. Developed by Dr. Michael F. Roizen, chair of anesthesia and critical care at the University of Chicago and preventive gerontologist, along with four other scientists, the RealAge program is based on cutting-edge scientific research. Dr. Roizen and his team have pored over 25,000 medical studies, evaluating what they tell us about aging and what they tell us about the prevention of aging.In RealAge, they present the complete results of their analysis for the first time. Each chapter covers a broad health topic–for example, how the right vitamins and supplements, exercise, or diet can be used to control how your genes affect you–and calculates the RealAge advantage you will gain by adopting a specific behavior. Charts, fact sheets, and tests give you specific choices to make and describe benefits to be gained so you can measure your success. Suggested behavior changes are rated in order of difficulty so you can decide whether the result is worth the effort. Ultimately, this program is about maintaining your health. The better condition you are in, the better prepared you will be to fight the factors that age you. RealAge demonstrates that you can have more control over the aging process. It makes science simple and its promise is irresistible: You may live as young at seventy as you did at forty-four. Remeber your high school reunion? Even though everyone was the same chronological age, people no longer looked the same. Some wore the years well, staying young and exuberant despite the passage of time, whereas others looked as if they had aged ten years more than everyone else–and probably had. Did you know that: Financial stress can make your RealAge two to thirty-two years older?The difference between having the ideal blood pressure 115/76–and high blood pressure–higher than 140/90–can make a RealAge difference of more than twenty years?A tablet of aspirin a day can make your RealAge 1.9 years younger?Flossing daily and seeing a dentist and dental hygienist every six months can make your RealAge 6.4 years younger?In RealAge you will discover many other easy-to-institute Age Reduction Strategies that will enable you to live longer and younger.

See more here: 

RealAge – Michael F. Roizen

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, HarperCollins e-books, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on RealAge – Michael F. Roizen

A Court Ordered Apple to Hack the San Bernardino Shooter’s Phone. Read Tim Cook’s Defiant Response.

by SelinaSkirving Posted on February 17, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Apple, the global tech giant, has confirmed it won’t help US law enforcement officials gain access to a cell phone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attack last year, defying Tuesday’s US District Court order.

The central Californian court ordered Apple to provide the FBI with software that would help it hack Syed Farook’s phone, something that has stumped the agency since the shooting on December 2, 2015. Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and seriously wounded over 20 others in a shooting spree at a holiday party. The subsequent manhunt ended in their deaths. Farook’s inaccessible cell phone has become central in trying to understand the shooters’ motivations, their other connections, and how they became inspired by global terrorism.

According to the Associated Press, which first reported the story, the ruling “requires Apple to supply highly specialized software the FBI can load onto the phone to cripple a security encryption feature that erases data after too many unsuccessful unlocking attempts.”

But in a letter posted overnight, Apple CEO Tim Cook says the company will not comply—threatening to pit Apple against the FBI during future legal action. Cook wrote: “Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.”

Read the full letter below:

A Message to Our Customers

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook

View original: 

A Court Ordered Apple to Hack the San Bernardino Shooter’s Phone. Read Tim Cook’s Defiant Response.

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Court Ordered Apple to Hack the San Bernardino Shooter’s Phone. Read Tim Cook’s Defiant Response.