Tag Archives: world

Hotel Chain to Grow Its Own Produce at 1,000 Locations

by ArlieMSZaecq Posted on April 21, 2016

As food prices soar, a growing number of foods become genetically modified or sprayed with pesticides and nutrient content in our fruits and vegetables drop, its no surprise that food gardening is experiencing a renaissance. So it should come as no surprise that one of the world’s largest hotel chains plans to grow its own vegetables at 1,000 hotel locations to cut food waste and increase food sustainability.

The Paris-based AccorHotel chain includes: Novotel, Ibis, Pullman, Sofitel and Mercure. The company estimates that growing its own fruit and vegetables will cut its food waste by 30 percent with a goal of cutting food waste entirely.

What the company cannot grow at its 1,000 urban hotel gardens, it intends to source locally, as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility commitment. Called Planet 21, the companys attempt to cut food waste by growing its own produce is just one of the areas it intends to become greener, increasingly sustainable and more community-focused.

Additionally, it intends to renovate or build new buildings as low-carbon buildings, increase innovations to boost sustainability and improve its engagement at the community level, among other goals.

According to a news story, AccorHotel has already cut water consumption by nearly 9 percent, energy consumption by 5.3 percentand carbon emissions by 6.2 percent over the last 5 years.

Obviously food waste and food security are major issues that both corporations and individuals need to address. As someone who already maintains a large fruit and vegetable garden and is in the midst of removing my front lawn to grow more produce, I know from experience that the current state of our food supply has been a big motivator for me. Im increasingly disturbed by the amount of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in a large volume of produce available at grocery stores. And Im equally concerned about the pesticides that have been linked to brain diseases like Parkinsons, Alzheimers and Lou Gehrigs Disease (known as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, or ALS).

Now, lets hope that many other hotels, restaurants, cafes, other businesses and individuals chime in to do their part to improve food security and to reduce food waste. While there are countless things we can all do to green up the planet and transform the quality and scarcity of our food and resources, here are a few suggestions to get started:

* Replace some or all of the lawn in your yard with fruit trees, vegetables, culinary or medicinal herbs. Of course, be sure to check bylaws in your area to ensure there are no legal issues, particularly if you dig up your front yard. Most food plants look lovelier than the monoculture we call grass and contribute far more to our health and the health of the planet.

* If you dont have a lawn or garden area you can still grow more of your own food in pots on a balcony or as part of a rooftop garden. These gardens not only boost our food supply and reduce transportation costs and carbon emissions from food transportation, they also help to create beautiful sanctuaries where we can get some relaxation in our hectic lives.

* Choose organic food as much as possible. Organic is less polluting to the environment and our bodies and doesnt contain GMOs. Plus, its how things grew for thousands of years. Pesticides and GMOs are recent phenomena that, contrary to what the companies manufacturing them may tell you, have not proven themselves to be worthy additions to agriculture or gardens.

Id love to hear your suggestions as to how we can boost our food independence, security, and reduce waste. How are you taking steps toward food independence?

Dr. Michelle Schoffro Cook, PhD, DNM is a certified herbalist and international best-selling and 19-time published book author whose works include: Be Your Own Herbalist: Essential Herbs for Health, Beauty, and Cooking (New World Library, 2016).

Related:
The Top U.S. Cities for Urban Farming
The Secret Intelligence of Plants
Permaculture: Landscaping That Works With Nature

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

Originally posted here:  

Hotel Chain to Grow Its Own Produce at 1,000 Locations

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, New World Library, ONA, organic, oven, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hotel Chain to Grow Its Own Produce at 1,000 Locations

Daily Action to Celebate Earth Week: Restore Nature

by MaryannBlackwell Posted on April 16, 2016

The week leading up to Earth Day is a great time to focus attention on the individual steps we can each take to help protect the planet and ourselves. That’s why, throughout Earth Week (April 17 – April 23) we’ll be highlighting a daily action that can make a difference.

First up: Restore Nature

Nature depends on wilderness, wetlands, forests, prairies and even deserts to sustain the animals, plants and resources ecosystems need to thrive. But the natural world is quickly disappearing. Since the 1700s, the U.S. has lost over 50 percent of its wetlands.

Twenty-two states have lost at least 50 percent of their original wetlands, reports Environmental Concern, Inc., while in seven states over 80 percent of original wetlands have disappeared. The story is similarly grim when it comes to the loss of forests.

The United Nations Environment Programme reports that 13 million hectares of forests, an area equivalent to the size of Greece, are cut down around the world every year. And though over a quarter of the world was once covered by grasslands, much of that has now been turned into farms, energy development and even suburbs, says National Geographic.

Though you may not be able to plant a tract of prairie or singlehandedly restore a marsh, you can do the following to make a difference:

* Plant a tree in your own yard. Can this make a difference? I think of the neighborhood I grew up in as proof that it can. My neighborhood started off as a blank subdivision that had been clearcut so that every house could be easilybuilt on a small, treeless tract. One of the first things my parents and others did when they moved in was plant treesin their front yard as well as in the back. Today, that neighborhood is flush with mature trees that provide shade in the summer and wonderful habitat for all kinds of migrating birds.

* Fill your landscapewith native plants. Whether or not you plant a tree, you will probably have other flowers and bushes in your yard. As much as possible, skip the exotic species in favor of native plants that help restore nature’s balance to your community. Your local county extension agent will be able to tell you what’s native to your region, as well as what will thrive in your own yard given your access to sunlight and water.

* Get together with your neighbors to restore natural spaces. Convene a meeting with your city planning officials and other concerned citizens to identify parts of your neighborhood that you can replant. Connect with the Boy Scouts to stencil storm drains with messages that warn people that the drains connect to their watershed, so they shouldn’t dump oil, paint or other contaminants. Organize a stream clean-up.

* Stopinvasive species.Non-native plants and animals threaten native wildlife and ecosystems and wreak ecological havoc, says the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), which pushes many plants and animals to the brink of extinction. Next to habitat loss and degradation, invasive species are the biggest threat to biodiversity. They can also cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars because they can clog water pipes, decimate fisheries and propagate disease. NWF recommends setting up monitoring systems to detect infestations of these unwanted creatures, and, at home, eradicating invasives in favor of planting and maintaining a natural garden.

* Be water wise. Think about water in two ways: how you use it and how you keep it clean. We waste an enormous amount of water by letting faucets run; by watering grass; by ignoring leaks; and by running appliances like dishwashers and clothes washers when they’re somewhat empty. Save water in your yard by planting more drought-tolerant plants, tightening faucets, replacing toilets and shower heads with more water-wise models and running appliances when they’re full. Protect water quality by minimizing use of fertilizers, insecticides and other pollutants that can run off into streams, rivers and lakes. Buy organically grown food to help reduce agricultural water pollution. And stop using personal care products that contain plastic microbeads, tiny pieces of toxic plastic that wash down the drain and into our waterways.

What other ideas do you have for restoring Nature on Earth Day? We’d love to hear what you plan to do.

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

View post:

Daily Action to Celebate Earth Week: Restore Nature

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Daily Action to Celebate Earth Week: Restore Nature

We pass the popcorn for the greatest climate hits of the Bernie-Hillary smackdown

by Addie04W39252 Posted on April 15, 2016

We pass the popcorn for the greatest climate hits of the Bernie-Hillary smackdown

By on 15 Apr 2016commentsShare

What do Gristers do after the two remaining Democratic candidates for president spend a substantial chunk of time debating climate and energy issues? Pour a drink and obsess over the whole thing in an online chat, of course. The following transcript has been lightly edited.

Scott Dodd (executive editor): Wow, nine Democratic debates in and we got a whole — what, 15 minutes devoted to the most important issues affecting the future of human civilization? Was anybody surprised we got even that much?

Ben Adler (politics reporter): I was optimistic that they would ask some questions about climate change because it’s been a hot issue recently.

Scott: “Hot!” Ba dum ching.

Ben: Then I got pessimistic as they asked about the most unimportant campaign trivia during the first segment. So I was sort of half surprised when it finally happened.

Rebecca Leber (news editor): The funny thing is it didn’t even kick off with a particularly insightful question. Just Wolf Blitzer asking Clinton about Sanders’ attacks, and then “What are his lies?” But it got better. I felt like the moderators just let the candidates go at each other, only pushing back occasionally. By far the best moderation on climate we’ve seen in any of the debates.

Scott: Yeah, it often seems like the moderators focus on things only the political press really cares about, as opposed to the real issues. But I guess that’s a good question: We in the Grist offices were glued to our screens for the climate and energy stuff, but do voters care?

Clayton Aldern (senior fellow): I think this is something that Ben has touched on a good amount — that climate tends to rank reasonably low on the priority list across both parties, albeit more highly on the Democratic side of things. My understanding is that climate tends to be one of the issues that people love to harp on, but not one with which they vote.

Ben: Most voters form an opinion of which candidate they prefer based on broader themes and find proof in the issues to support them. It’s not what you say about the issues, it’s what the issues say about you. And climate doesn’t rank in the first tier.

Scott: Sanders compared them to 9/11 and WWII in terms of importance.

Ben: I appreciated that analogy. In general, it feels like your average liberal, and increasingly your average moderate and sometimes even conservative, realizes that climate change is a terrifying long-term threat. They support a transition to clean energy, but have no sense of immediate urgency. Sanders is trying to convey the urgency with which it should be treated.

Clayton: I think this is the first time we’ve seen anyone deploy that kind of rhetoric — the “enemy” rhetoric — for the security threat argument.

Rebecca: There are so many ways climate change can fit into the broader discussion, and not as a niche issue the political press usually treats it as. Sanders’ comments on combating an “enemy” got at that larger framework we’re usually missing.

Scott: So for those of us who do really care about climate, did we hear anything new last night from the candidates?

Rebecca: We got a sense of two different philosophies: Clinton pushing what Obama has already accomplished and how to expand on that, and Sanders wanting to go much further, condemning the status quo, by banning fracking and whatnot. I don’t think voters have heard much that would give them a sense of the candidates’ two visions before last night. Probably because previous debates mostly ignored it.

Scott: Ben, going back to Wolf’s first question to Clinton about her campaign donations from fossil fuel interests, which you wrote about this past week: Is that the kind of trivial stuff that just gets the candidates yelling at each other, or does it matter?

Ben: I think that to a certain segment of Sanders supporters, the fossil fuel dollars become one of those points that they glom onto because it reinforces their sense of Clinton as in hock to corporate interests. But I doubt any voters who were undecided between the candidates would choose Sanders when they find out Clinton has a handful of lobbyist donors who have fossil fuel corporations as clients. If you weren’t already a Sanders voter, why would that push you over? And that connects to my critique of that whole issue, which is that an enviro voter deciding between Clinton and Sanders should — and probably does — care more about their policy stances than their donors.

Scott: So then Rebecca, to your point about different philosophies, how much daylight is there really between Clinton and Sanders on climate and energy issues — and where are those major differences, if any?

Rebecca: Well, there were some surprising and not surprising differences highlighted yesterday — for one, Clinton repeating that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” and we “want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible.” Sanders certainly doesn’t agree it’s a bridge fuel. Also, Clinton not quite answering whether she supports a carbon tax and Sanders not quite answering how to make up for nuclear energy (which he wants to phase out) were easy-to-miss but important nuances. But on the basic point — do they think climate change is a problem that needs solving? — they agree.

Clayton: Clinton’s comment about natural gas as a bridge fuel — and bear in mind, she largely made the argument with respect to Europe, by which I assume she’s referring to Eastern Europe — is remarkably similar to the World Bank’s position on gas. If you’re looking for anything that epitomizes the “establishment” (read: incrementalist) approach to energy policy, it’s probably that.

Rebecca: True, Sanders and Clinton have different audiences in mind.

Ben: Yeah, Clinton is concerned about the general election and swing voters, Sanders isn’t. My strong suspicion is that Clinton doesn’t want to back a carbon tax because she fears being attacked for it in the fall. “Clinton would raise your electricity bills. You’d pay more to fill up your car,” etc.

Rebecca: Yes. I was confused at first (“baffled” was the word I used on Twitter) why Clinton didn’t come out and say she supports a carbon tax. A bunch of journalists on Twitter had a lot of smart things to say, basically that she has her eye on the general and doesn’t want to feature in an attack ad saying the word “tax” on endless loop. I think the same audiences apply for fracking — Clinton is thinking about the general; Sanders is thinking about his base.

Ben: I asked her campaign chair, John Podesta, about this in the spin room after the debate, and Jen Palmieri, a Clinton spokeswoman. They both said, essentially, that Clinton doesn’t support a carbon tax because she has other means of getting us to, in Podesta’s words, “deep decarbonization.” So they deny that it’s a political calculation, but I think it is — why open herself up to attacks with a policy proposal that won’t pass anyway?

Clayton: Clinton is all about the realm of political possibility — what can get through Congress, what offers the path of least resistance, etc. The bridge fuel argument says, “Let’s at least do better than coal.” Sanders doesn’t buy that argument, and says we need drastic change if we actually want to solve the climate crisis. (This is, of course, largely representative of their approaches to their campaigns more generally.)

Ben: Yeah, Sanders doesn’t care about any of that. He just endorses the optimal policy because he’s got to win a bunch more Dems to win the nomination, and that’s how he could do it.

Scott: So that seems to bring us to the place where Sanders struggled the most on energy last night, when the moderators challenged him on his all-out opposition to fracking, and whether that means we’d just have to go back to relying more on coal and nuclear. How do you think he came out there?

Rebecca: Oof, not good, though I don’t think it will matter to his supporters. He basically didn’t answer, only pointed to his 10 million rooftop solar initiative. This was as much a non-answer as Clinton’s was on a carbon tax.

Clayton: I mean, we have him saying, “We have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday.” He’s right about that, but he also needs to deliver concrete policy solutions.

Scott: It was interesting how much Clinton tied herself to the Obama climate legacy — a legacy that, just a few years ago, many enviros considered a mixed bag at best. Is that a sign of how far the president has come on climate?

Rebecca: Well, this has been a broader strategy for her. She’s been tying herself to Obama’s legacy left and right. So I think it’s because he’s just very popular among Democrats, at about 87 percent approval rating. But maybe how far he’s come on climate is one of the reasons he’s so popular among Dems.

Clayton: I dunno. Clinton name-dropped Obama a lot, but she also softened the language she used on that front a bit. Compare last night’s “I worked with President Obama to bring China and India to the table for the very first time” to October’s “literally hunting for the Chinese.”

Ben: I agree with Rebecca. The other thing is that Clinton is trying to hint at is political feasibility. She’s trying to point out to Dem voters that they aren’t the whole electorate, that Republicans are suing to stop Obama’s Clean Power Plan, for instance, and that just protecting Obama’s progress will be enough of a challenge, and that more aggressive policies might run into legal challenges, or cost Democrats elections in swing states. But she doesn’t spell all that out, and I’m not sure why. It makes her sound timid instead of pragmatic.

Scott: This takes us beyond last night’s debate and looking ahead toward the general election: Do you think we’ve just hit the high-water mark for discussion of these issues?

Clayton: Well the nominee sure as hell isn’t going to have a more substantive conversation about energy policy with Trump.

Rebecca: I think this is the last engaging debate on climate we’ll see. Once we get to the general, whoever the Democratic nominee is will just have to highlight climate denial, not get into policy details of the what and how.

Scott: That’s depressing, isn’t it?

Rebecca: If you care about this issue, you get used to it.

Clayton: She said, depressed.

Ben: I actually think it’s possible general election debate moderators will ask about climate change because they like issues where the candidates disagree. They never ask about abortion in the Democratic primary debates, for example, because the candidates are both pro-choice. But I don’t think it will be nearly as serious a conversation about climate policy.

Scott: So let’s try to end on a high note: Anything last night that made you LOL — like you couldn’t believe that was coming out of a candidate’s mouth?

Ben: Nothing funny, but I was excited to see Sanders ask Clinton directly about a carbon tax. I wish debates were more direct interaction between candidates rather than each offering canned answers filled with irrelevant talking points to the moderators. They’re usually more like simultaneous interviews than actual debates.

Rebecca: Clinton burned Sanders pretty hard: “I don’t take a back seat to your legislation that you’ve introduced that you haven’t been able to get passed.”

Clayton: Re: Sanders not releasing his tax returns, she also said, “Well, you know, there are a lot of copy machines around.” Which was worth a small handful of lulz.

Scott: I was convinced Wolf was going to end the climate conversation after the first question, just like the moderators have in so many previous debates this election cycle. So the fact that it went on as long as it did and we got so much from the candidates on the issue made me smile.

Ben: I loved how rowdy the audience was. That was NY representing.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More:  

We pass the popcorn for the greatest climate hits of the Bernie-Hillary smackdown

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We pass the popcorn for the greatest climate hits of the Bernie-Hillary smackdown

Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

by JudeMathis Posted on April 15, 2016

Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

By on 15 Apr 2016commentsShare

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders visited the Vatican on Friday to address a conference on social, economic, and environmental justice. Pope Francis, who is currently in Greece addressing the Syrian refugee crisis, was not in attendance, but Sanders praised the pontiff’s commitment to social justice and made several pointed remarks on the rising inequality between the world’s rich and everyone else — and how that wealth inequality affects the planet.

An excerpt from his speech:

The widening gaps between the rich and poor, the desperation of the marginalized, the power of corporations over politics, is not a phenomenon of the United States alone. The excesses of the unregulated global economy have caused even more damage in the developing countries. They suffer not only from the boom-bust cycles on Wall Street, but from a world economy that puts profits over pollution, oil companies over climate safety, and arms trade over peace. […]

Our youth are no longer satisfied with corrupt and broken politics and an economy of stark inequality and injustice. They are not satisfied with the destruction of our environment by a fossil fuel industry whose greed has put short term profits ahead of climate change and the future of our planet. They want to live in harmony with nature, not destroy it.

Sanders’ comments mirrored much of what he has been saying on the campaign trail, but some in the church doubt the Senator’s appearance at the Vatican will have much of an impact on Catholic voters. “I don’t think that Bernie Sanders going to the Vatican is going to help Bernie with Catholics any more than Ted Cruz going to a matzo factory is going to help him with the Jewish vote,” Matt Malone, editor of Jesuit magazine America, told the Associated Press, pointing out that conferences such as this are exceedingly common, and the Pope rarely attends.

You can read the full text of Sanders’ speech here.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article – 

Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sanders addresses the Vatican on how income inequality is killing the planet

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

by AdriannQCD Posted on April 13, 2016

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

By on 13 Apr 2016commentsShare

You know how some parents have to check their kids’ bedrooms for monsters every night, even though they know there aren’t any monsters, and deep down, the kids probably know that too? Well, a bunch of researchers effectively just checked the bedroom of every climate denier for lack of consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and just like the mom peering into her kid’s closet for the 100th time, they came up empty.

There IS a scientific consensus on climate change, and it DOES hover around 97 percent, according to a study published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The unsurprising results come not from another superfluous survey of scientists and scientific papers, but rather, a survey of those surveys. Meaning the study’s authors, Merchants of Doubt co-author Naomi Oreskes among them, basically just double-, triple-, and quadruple-checked under the bed, beat a dead horse, banged their heads against a wall, wrote up their findings, and managed to do it all while not screaming, “WE JUST DID THIS YESTERDAY. NOW SHUT UP AND GO TO SLEEP!”

That’s because little Suzy is irrational, and so is a lot of America. Despite what people like Ted Cruz want you to believe, we are warming up the planet, and unless we do something about it, Suzy and her little friends are in for a rough future.

Surveys of scientists or studies reporting this not to be the case either conflate experts with non-experts or falsely equate a “no position” stance with denial or uncertainty, the new meta-survey shows. One survey of economic geologists, for example, found only a 47 percent consensus. But that’s a pretty meaningless result, because if Ben Carson taught us anything, it’s that someone can be a smart, well-respected expert in one field and a complete idiot in another.

Now, it’s tempting to just ignore people who deny this clear consensus. Many of them aren’t interested in facts and never will be, so why waste our energy? Because these people aren’t operating in a bubble. They’re using this false narrative to keep the public in a state of confusion and thus hinder any serious effort to address this problem.

John Cook, the lead author on the new study and a fellow at the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland, wrote about this danger today in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. He said that years of misinformation and doubt from conservatives have seriously skewed the public’s understanding of where scientists stand on climate change. Just last year, he noted, a survey revealed that a mere 12 percent of Americans knew that the consensus was above 90 percent.

For those of us who think about climate change all day every day, this is pretty hard to believe. But it’s the sad truth, and it’s why we have to continue looking for monsters and beating dead horses. Fortunately, the more the world starts to change, the harder it’s going to be for people to hide behind false or misleading studies. And if that doesn’t give you hope, then maybe this clip of Bill Nye making infamous merchant of doubt Marc Morano squirm will:

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source: 

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

Renewable Energy Roundup: 5 Myths About Solar Energy

by ZulmaKeynes Posted on April 13, 2016

Renewable energy continues to advance, particularly the solar energy market which is dynamic and evolving quickly. Proof you say? Let’s take a look at a few facts first.

The solar industry had another record-breaking year in 2015, with installed capacity increasing 16% over 2014 installations.
At the same time, solar system prices fell by 17%.
For the first ever, solar beat natural gas in new power capacity last year, with solar energy contributing 29.4% of total new electric generation capacity.

Meanwhile, solar technology advances are making systems more energy efficient and resistant to shade from trees and buildings, allowing them to produce a larger percentage of overall household energy consumption. Many solar installers now offer solar system monitoring, so homeowners can view historic and real-time solar system output data. With such a dynamic market and with technology advances, things that were true a few years ago may no longer be true today. 

Researching renewable energy

Separating fact from fiction, let’s take a look at a few myths about solar energy that still prevail. Here are the Top 5 myths about renewable energy — specifically solar.

Myth 1: Solar PV systems require a lot of maintenance and upkeep

With no moving parts, grid-tied solar renewable energy electric systems (without batteries) requires virtually no maintenance. Image Credit: LUCARELLI TEMISTOCLE / Shutterstock

With no moving parts, grid-tied solar electric systems (without batteries) requires virtually no maintenance. This is impressive, considering the design life of most solar systems is 25 to 30 years. Most solar panel manufacturers even provide 20 to 30 year warranties, because the technology is so reliable.

It is however recommended to inspect solar panels for dust or debris a couple times a year, and clean them with the garden hose if necessary to ensure optimum energy output. Use caution when viewing or cleaning solar panels from high heights, if they cannot be clearly viewed from the ground. Most solar system owners never do inspect panels for cleanliness or clean them however and their systems continues to perform well. 

Most residential solar systems are connected to the electric grid and have no batteries, which makes them more efficient than a system without batteries. Most utility companies across the country have net metering programs to credit solar system owners for feeding solar electricity to the power grid, when the system is generating more than the home consumes at the time.

Batteries decrease the sustainability and efficiency of the solar system, as not all the power is actually captured and used. Like any other kind of battery, solar system batteries do require maintenance and will need to be replaced every five to ten years. They are also bulky and the batteries themselves have an environmental impact, even if they are recycled at the end of their life.

Myth 2: Solar power is very expensive

Although this was a true statement just a decades ago, the cost of solar panels and equipment has plummeted. As solar technology advances, solar energy production is also increasing significantly, allowing the system to produce more of the overall household electricity. Now that solar electricity has grown nearly exponentially in popularity, solar equipment is mass produced, allowing prices to fall significantly.

A similar phenomenon happened with digital cameras, DVD players, and laptops. Although these gadgets were very costly when they first hit the market, prices have since declined dramatically, making them more affordable for many people. Likewise, solar technology is advancing and becoming more efficient as well.

“There are higher efficiency solar panels available on the market now, which come at a slightly lower price [per watt],” says Nir Maimon, CEO of Sol Reliable, a solar installation and green energy solutions company headquartered in Los Angeles. “Average panel efficiency is now 17%-21%, while previously, it was closer to 16%-17% efficiency.”

At the same time, residential electricity rates have also increased over the last decade, especially in certain areas of the country. The financial performance of a solar system is largely dependent on the cost of electricity that a homeowner would otherwise pay. Today, solar energy systems have never been as affordable, or a better investment, especially in certain markets.

Myth 3: Solar panels don’t generate much electricity during the winter

When the temperature of the solar panels is cooler, they can generate more renewable energy. Image Credit: Bernhard Richter / Shutterstock

Unless you live on the North or South Pole, solar energy systems typically generate a lot of electricity during colder weather, unless they are covered by snow or ice. Despite the angle of the sun being lower in the sky and the days being shorter, solar energy systems can generate significant amounts of electricity throughout the winter months.

This is because solar panels use light, not heat, to generate electricity. When the temperature of the solar panels is cooler, they can generate more renewable energy. Once they reach temperatures around 32 degrees Celsius or 90 degrees Fahrenheit, solar panel output starts to decline. Since panel temperatures are roughly 20 degrees Celsius warmer than ambient temperatures, these temperatures are commonly reached in most climates. 

Myth 4: Solar technology is not reliable

Solar PV systems are very reliable and durable throughout its 25 to 30 year design life, requiring few if any repairs. Of course some of this depends on the components by specific companies, as some solar panel and equipment companies offer higher quality products than others. 

Solar panels are manufactured to handle extreme weather, including medium-sized hail and falling branches. In fact, the EU Energy Institute found that 90% of solar panels last for 30 years or longer. Because solar electricity is so reliable, it is frequently used to power vital systems, including railroad crossing signals, construction safety signs, aircraft warning lights, and navigational buoys.

Myth 5: I will be off grid and store solar energy in batteries

Most solar homes are still connected to the power grid, for financial and environmental reasons. Most solar systems produce more electricity than is needed during the day. Being connected to the power grid allows homeowners to feed excess daytime electricity to the grid under a program called net metering. Studies show that an average of 20% to 40% of a solar system’s output is fed to the power grid, where it helps to power neighboring houses. Credits appear on the electric bill for energy sold back to the power grid. During overcast weather and at night, solar homes draw power from the grid.

If a home is located in a remote area away from the power grid, a standalone solar system with batteries may be the most practical solution. There is typically a charge for extending the power grid, which can be thousands or even tens of thousands, depending on the distance and other factors. Sometimes stand alone solar systems are more cost-effective to install than extending the power grid, even when taking the costs and upkeep of batteries into account.

Feature image credit: lovelyday12 / Shutterstock

About
Latest Posts

Sarah Lozanova

Sarah Lozanova is a renewable energy and sustainability journalist and communications professional, with an MBA in sustainable management. She is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Earth911, Home Power, Triple Pundit, CleanTechnica, Mother Earth Living, the Ecologist, GreenBiz, Renewable Energy World, and Windpower Engineering.Lozanova also works with several corporate clients as a public relations writer to gain visibility for renewable energy and sustainability achievements.

Latest posts by Sarah Lozanova (see all)

Renewable Energy Roundup: 5 Myths About Solar Energy – April 13, 2016
Why One Family Of Four Chose To Downsize To 900 SF – April 8, 2016
Has Solar Energy Technology Evolved? – April 1, 2016

earth911

Visit site:  

Renewable Energy Roundup: 5 Myths About Solar Energy

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Renewable Energy Roundup: 5 Myths About Solar Energy

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

by MistyMcDowall Posted on April 13, 2016

Mother Jones

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

In one chapter of his campaign book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general, a post he held from 2003 to 2008. Bolstering his conservative cred, the Republican presidential candidate notes that during his stint as the state’s chief lawyer before the Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts, he defended the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol, a congressional redistricting plan that assisted Republicans, a restrictive voter identification law, and a ban on late-term abortions. He also described cases in which he championed gun rights and defended the conviction of a Mexican citizen who raped and murdered two teenage girls in a case challenged by the World Court. Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos.

The case was actually an important battle concerning privacy and free speech rights. In 2004, companies that owned Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices. Under the law, a person who violated the statute could go to jail for up to two years. At the time, only three states—Mississippi, Alabama, and Virginia—had similar laws. (The previous year, a Texas mother who was a sales rep for Passion Parties was arrested by two undercover cops for selling vibrators and other sex-related goods at a gathering akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys. No doubt, this had worried businesses peddling such wares.) The plaintiffs in the sex-device case contended the state law violated the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. They argued that many people in Texas used sexual devices as an aspect of their sexual experiences. They claimed that in some instances one partner in a couple might be physically unable to engage in intercourse or have a contagious disease (such as HIV) and that in these cases such devices could allow a couple to engage in safe sex.

Continue Reading »

Taken from:  

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Pines, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

The world’s largest private coal company just went bankrupt

by LeroyReiss Posted on April 13, 2016

The world’s largest private coal company just went bankrupt

By on 13 Apr 2016 5:08 amcommentsShare

In a move that has environmentalists hunting for graves to dance on, Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private-sector coal company, has filed for bankruptcy.

It’s the fourth major U.S. coal company to go bankrupt in the last year. The dirtiest fossil fuel sector has been hit hard by the natural gas boom and dropping prices for renewables. Further adding to coal’s woes are Obama’s pending Clean Power Plan and aggressive anti-coal organizing by climate activists.

In a statement, the company said that with the Chapter 11 filing, it intends to reduce its debt level, improve its cash flow, and “position the company for long-term success, while continuing to operate under the protection of the court process.” At the time of writing, nobody had yet had the heart to tell CEO Glenn Kellow that the coal industry itself might not be poised for the kind of success that could eventually revive the company.

Peabody is more than $6 billion in debt. Last month, the company missed a $71 million interest payment and its credit rating was downgraded to a “D” by Standard and Poor’s. Recently, Peabody had been attempting to sell off mines in New Mexico and Colorado in order to stay afloat, but the company’s statement notes that those planned sales have been terminated. (Peabody’s Australian arm is not part of the bankruptcy filing.)

Last week, we reported that Peabody had “self-bonded” to cover $1.4 billion in mine reclamation and cleanup costs, and that those costs were in danger of being passed along to taxpayers if the company went bankrupt. But the company claims that won’t happen. “Peabody intends to continue to work with the applicable state governments and federal agencies to meet its reclamation obligations,” its statement says. Here’s hoping.

In the meantime, enjoy that grave dance.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to article – 

The world’s largest private coal company just went bankrupt

Posted in alo, Anchor, Energy, Inc., FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The world’s largest private coal company just went bankrupt

Global leaders are very worried about water shortages

by Kyle994337 Posted on April 13, 2016

A woman walks with donkeys carrying water gerry cans in Yemen’s volatile province of Marib. REUTERS/Ali Owidha

Global leaders are very worried about water shortages

By on 12 Apr 2016commentsShare

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

Secret conversations between American diplomats show how a growing water crisis in the Middle East destabilized the region, helping spark civil wars in Syria and Yemen, and how those water shortages are spreading to the United States.

Classified U.S. cables reviewed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting show a mounting concern by global political and business leaders that water shortages could spark unrest across the world, with dire consequences.

Many of the cables read like diary entries from an apocalyptic sci-fi novel.

“Water shortages have led desperate people to take desperate measures with equally desperate consequences,” according to a 2009 cable sent by U.S. Ambassador Stephen Seche in Yemen as water riots erupted across the country.

On Sept. 22 of that year, Seche sent a stark message to the U.S. State Department in Washington relaying the details of a conversation with Yemen’s minister of water, who “described Yemen’s water shortage as the ‘biggest threat to social stability in the near future.’ He noted that 70 percent of unofficial roadblocks stood up by angry citizens are due to water shortages, which are increasingly a cause of violent conflict.”

Seche soon cabled again, stating that 14 of the country’s 16 aquifers had run dry. At the time, Yemen wasn’t getting much news coverage, and there was little public mention that the country’s groundwater was running out.

These communications, along with similar cables sent from Syria, now seem eerily prescient, given the violent meltdowns in both countries that resulted in a flood of refugees to Europe.

Groundwater, which comes from deeply buried aquifers, supplies the bulk of freshwater in many regions, including Syria, Yemen, and drought-plagued California. It is essential for agricultural production, especially in arid regions with little rainwater. When wells run dry, farmers are forced to fallow fields, and some people get hungry, thirsty and often very angry.

The classified diplomatic cables, made public years ago by Wikileaks, now are providing fresh perspective on how water shortages have helped push Syria and Yemen into civil war, and prompted the king of neighboring Saudi Arabia to direct his country’s food companies to scour the globe for farmland. Since then, concerns about the world’s freshwater supplies have only accelerated.

It’s not just government officials who are worried. In 2009, U.S. Embassy officers visited Nestle’s headquarters in Switzerland, where company executives, who run the world’s largest food company and are dependent on freshwater to grow ingredients, provided a grim outlook of the coming years. An embassy official cabled Washington with the subject line, “Tour D’Horizon with Nestle: Forget the Global Financial Crisis, the World Is Running Out of Fresh Water.”

“Nestle thinks one-third of the world’s population will be affected by fresh water scarcity by 2025, with the situation only becoming more dire thereafter and potentially catastrophic by 2050,” according to a March 24, 2009, cable. “Problems will be severest in the Middle East, northern India, northern China, and the western United States.”

At the time of that meeting, government officials from Syria and Yemen already had started warning U.S. officials that their countries were slipping into chaos as a result of water scarcity.

By September 2009, Yemen’s water minister told the U.S. ambassador that the water riots in his country were a “sign of the future” and predicted “that conflict between urban and rural areas over water will lead to violence,” according to the cables.

Less than two years later, rural tribesmen fought their way into Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, and seized two buildings: the headquarters of the ruling General People’s Congress and the main offices of the water utility. The president was forced to resign, and a new government was formed. But water issues continued to amplify long-simmering tensions between various religious groups and tribesmen, which eventually led to a full-fledged civil war.

Reveal reviewed a cache of water-related documents that included Yemen, Nestle, and Saudi Arabia among the diplomatic documents made public by Wikileaks in 2010. Thomas Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times, found similar classified U.S. cables sent from Syria. Those cables also describe how water scarcity destabilized the country and helped spark a war that has sent more than 1 million refugees fleeing into Europe, a connection Friedman has continued to report.

The water-fueled conflicts in the Middle East paint a dark picture of a future that many governments now worry could spread around the world as freshwater supplies become increasingly scarce. The CIA, the State Department, and similar agencies in other countries are monitoring the situation.

In the past, global grain shortages have led to rapidly increasing food prices, which analysts have attributed to sparking the Arab Spring revolution in several countries, and in 2008 pushed about 150 million people into poverty, according to the World Bank.

Water scarcity increasingly is driven by three major factors: Global warming is forecast to create more severe droughts around the world. Meat consumption, which requires significantly more water than a vegetarian or low-meat diet, is spiking as a growing middle class in countries such as China and India can afford to eat more pork, chicken, and beef. And the world’s population continues to grow, with an expected 2 billion more stomachs to feed by 2050.

The most troubling signs of the looming threat first appeared in the Middle East, where wells started running dry nearly 15 years ago. Having drained down their own water supplies, food companies from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere began searching overseas.

By buying land in America’s most productive ground for growing hay, which just happens to be a desert, Saudi Arabia’s largest dairy company now can grow food for its cows back home — all year long.U.S. Geological Survey/NASA Landsat

In Saudi Arabia, the push to scour the globe for water came from the top. King Abdullah decreed that grains such as wheat and hay would need to be imported to conserve what was left of the country’s groundwater. All wheat production in Saudi Arabia will cease this year, and other water-intensive crops such as hay are being phased out, too, the king ruled.

A classified U.S. cable from Saudi Arabia in 2008 shows that King Abdullah directed Saudi food companies to search overseas for farmland with access to freshwater and promised to subsidize their operations. The head of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh concluded that the king’s goal was “maintaining political stability in the Kingdom.”

U.S. intelligence sources are quick to caution that while water shortages played a significant factor in the dissolution of Syria and Yemen, the civil wars ultimately occurred as a result of weak governance, high unemployment, religious differences, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to water shortages.

For instance, the state of California has endured a record drought without suffering an armed coup to overthrow Gov. Jerry Brown.

But for less stable governments, severe water shortages are increasingly expected to cause political instability, according to the U.S. intelligence community.

In a 2014 speech, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said food and water scarcity are contributing to the “most diverse array of threats and challenges as I’ve seen in my 50-plus years in the intel business.

“As time goes on, we’ll be confronting issues I call ‘basics’ resources — food, water, energy, and disease — more and more as an intelligence community,” he said.

These problems are not just happening overseas, but already are leading to heated political issues in the United States. In the western part of the country, which Nestle forecast will suffer severe long-term shortages, tensions are heating up as Middle Eastern companies arrive to tap dwindling water supplies in California and Arizona.

Almarai, which is Saudi Arabia’s largest dairy company and has publicly said it’s following the king’s directive, began pumping up billions of gallons of water in the Arizona desert in 2014 to grow hay that it exports back to the Middle East. Analysts refer to this as exporting “virtual water.” It is more cost-effective to use the Arizona water to irrigate land in America and ship the hay to Saudi Arabia rather than filling a fleet of oil tankers with the water.

Arizonans living near Almarai’s hay operation say their groundwater is dropping fast as the Saudis and other foreign companies increase production. They are now worried their domestic wells might suffer the same fate as those in Syria and Yemen.

In January, more than 300 people packed into a community center in rural La Paz County to listen to the head of the state’s water department discuss how long their desert aquifer would last.

Five sheriff’s deputies stood guard at the event to ensure the meeting remained civil — the Arizona Department of Water Resources had requested extra law enforcement, according to county Supervisor Holly Irwin.

“Water can be a very angry issue,” she said. “With people’s wells drying up, it becomes very personal.”

Thomas Buschatzke, Arizona’s water director, defended the Saudi farm, saying it provides jobs and increases tax revenue. He added that “Arizona is part of the global economy; our agricultural industry generates billions of dollars annually to our state’s economy.”

But state officials admit they don’t know how long the area’s water will last, given the increased water pumping, and announced plans to study it.

“It’s gotten very emotional,” Irwin said. “When you see them drilling all over the place, I need to protect the little people.”

After the meeting, the state approved another two new wells for the Saudi company, each capable of pumping more than a billion gallons of water a year.

Back in Yemen in 2009, U.S. Ambassador Seche described how as aquifers were drained, and groundwater levels dropped lower, rich landowners drilled deeper and deeper wells. But everyday citizens did not have the money to dig deeper, and as their wells ran dry, they were forced to leave their land and livelihoods behind.

“The effects of water scarcity will leave the rich and powerful largely unaffected,” Seche wrote in the classified 2009 cable. “These examples illustrate how the rich always have a creative way of getting water, which not only is unavailable to the poor, but also cuts into the unreplenishable resources.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading: 

Global leaders are very worried about water shortages

Posted in alo, Anchor, Anker, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Global leaders are very worried about water shortages

The US Is One of the Top Executioners in the World

by GidgetPrinsep Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

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

The global death penalty rate is skyrocketing. According to the latest tallies, published today by Amnesty International, at least 1,634 people were put to death last year, a 54 percent increase from the previous year. That’s the highest number of recorded executions in more than a quarter century, and it’s not even counting deaths in China, the world’s top executioner, where death penalty data is treated as a state secret.

Most of those deaths were in the Middle East: Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia accounted for nearly 90 percent of all executions in 2015. The vast majority of Iran’s executions were for drug-related crimes, while Pakistan lifted a moratorium on civilian executions in 2014 to more aggressively punish suspected terrorists. In Saudi Arabia, the justice system is so opaque that it’s hard to know what’s driving executions, but since the new king came to power last year, the country has drawn increasing international condemnation for its crackdown on dissidents.

While executions surged in those three countries, the trend elsewhere was more heartening. Four more countries abolished the death penalty last year, which means that for the first time ever, more than half of all nations have legally abolished it. (Other countries have abandoned it in practice, after not executing anyone for at least a decade.)

And where does the United States stand? Just like in 2014, it ranked fifth on the list of the world’s top executioners last year. The country recorded 28 executions, its lowest annual amount since 1991, and 52 new death sentences, the lowest since 1977. Since 1846, 19 states have abolished the death penalty, but even though lethal punishment here is on the decline, we’re still the only country in the Americas to execute people.

You can read Amnesty International’s full report here.

View this article:

The US Is One of the Top Executioners in the World

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The US Is One of the Top Executioners in the World