Page 1 of 129
Posted on May 29 at 7:41 p.m.
The more effort that is made everywhere to limit emissions the better. The mantra that because China is not, is not an excuse. China, btw, is spending more money than any other country on renewable energy. And much of their fossil fuel based power is to sate this country's appetite for their cheap goods.
Here are two things we can do - limit emissions - stop the importing (ships use fuel as well) of Chinese goods by buying less.
It is not who is doing what - but we should all do as much as possible so that our nest does not go up in smoke. Our rainless west coast is getting drier by the day.
On County Adopts Stringent New Emissions Limits
Posted on May 27 at 11:42 p.m.
Well written piece. I feel how you felt. I hope you cleaned up well afterward. Thankfully, no dispersants had been used, lessening the pollution you subjected yourself to. I hope the pelican survived.
On On the Beach
Posted on May 27 at 11:34 p.m.
"The Global Warming Petition Project " was debunked in 2009. It is now 2015. Why are you talking about it?
On Community Demands Transparency in Refugio Spill
Posted on May 27 at 11:21 p.m.
Adding all that reactive nitrogen has effectively fertilized whole ecosystems beyond farms’ boundaries, creating a host of downstream and downwind problems. “One atom can have cascading effects on land and water, causing loss of biodiversity, algal blooms,” says Eric Davidson, president of the Woods Hole Research Center and an expert on the global nitrogen cycle, “and the same atom of N keeps getting cycled through the system.”
This nitrogen cascade manifests in a variety of ways. Nitrogen oxides contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, or smog, which increases the risk of serious respiratory illness and cancer; a different problem arises in the stratosphere, where these gases destroy beneficial UV-blocking ozone. Nitrogen fertilizers also stimulate natural bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide, which contributes to acid rain and is a greenhouse gas that traps 300 times more heat per molecule than does carbon dioxide. Reactive nitrogen infiltrates surface streams and groundwater, polluting drinking wells. Excess levels of nitrogen in some ecosystems bolsters some species at the expense of others, leading to overall reduced biodiversity.
Perhaps the most visible impacts are the huge “dead zones” in the Baltic Sea and other areas downstream from farms. One of the worst is in the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizer runoff carried by the Mississippi River feeds huge algae blooms that deprive other organisms of oxygen. The zone changes in size depending on the flow volume of the river and other seasonal factors. Last year it was about 6,700 square miles—larger than Connecticut.
Our use of synthetic nitrogen is head-scratchingly inefficient: One study found that for every 100 grams of synthetic nitrogen used in agriculture in 2005, only 17 grams found their way into crops or animal products consumed by humans. Most farmers only have two data points available to judge the efficiency of their fertilizer use: their crop yield and the amount of nitrogen they apply each year. Those are very crude proxies. In between those events, a vastly complex set of chemical reactions takes place in soil, plants, and the atmosphere that researchers are still working to understand.
Be careful what you wish for.
On Refugio Oil Spill a Crime Scene?
Posted on May 27 at 11:20 p.m.
The Haber process, also called the Haber–Bosch process, is an artificial nitrogen fixation process and is the main industrial procedure for the production of ammonia today. It is named after its inventors, the German chemists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, who developed it in the first half of the twentieth century. The process converts atmospheric nitrogen (N2) to ammonia (NH3) by a reaction with hydrogen (H2) using a metal catalyst under high temperatures and pressures: The hydrogen originally came from the electrolysis of water, before methane from natural gas was used.
For this reason alone, the Haber-Bosch process is considered by many scientists and historians to be the most transformational technological development of the modern age. But the case gets even stronger once you consider all of its unintended consequences. For, as with the original Prometheus, progress always comes with a price, in this case water and air pollution, deteriorating human health, reduced biodiversity, soil acidification, and accelerated global warming, to name a few.
Posted on May 26 at 1:06 p.m.
What is it called when more posts are made by one person, and none of the posts have much value, other than to repeat a name? Spam.
On What Will the Refugio Oil Spill Kill?
Posted on May 26 at 12:49 p.m.
Yes, everyone knows about the natural seeps in COP. Also, most people know that there is highly diverse marine life in the area. There is oil and there is oil. To equate the slow release by seeps with the overwhelming number of gallons from a leak, is something even school children will say "not fair".
First of all, marine life thrives for the most part, despite the seeps. Second, oil leaks coat marine animals, plants, all sorts of critters and they die - i.e. not thrive.
Thriving versus dying.
Posted on May 26 at 12:40 p.m.
CHART: How Many Birds Are Killed By Wind, Solar, Oil, And Coal?
Either way, the results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind. Note the chart below:
"The Indy didn't correct its mistaken attribution, it allowed readers to continue to believe its false information." Please provide a link that refutes that claim. All I have seen is the warmer temperatures are the cause.
Posted on May 25 at 6:59 a.m.
As far back as 2001, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania declared that providing housing to the homeless is a “solution that can pay for itself.” Seattle, for instance, saved a lot of money with its housing-first program for recovering alcoholics. The Pathways to Housing program, which started in 1992 in New York City and was one of the initial housing-first programs, saved the public up to $42,893 per year, according to a 2011 report.
Utah and Colorado have also seen dramatic success. Utah has seen almost a 90 percent decrease in homelessness since its implementation of the housing-first model in 2005, the Christian Science Monitor recently reported. Colorado’s housing-first programs report a 96 percent rate of home-retention. Both states have also saved a lot of money. Here’s the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki to explain:
Homeless people are not cheap to take care of. The cost of shelters, emergency-room visits, ambulances, police, and so on quickly piles up. Lloyd Pendleton, the director of Utah’s Homeless Task Force, told me of one individual whose care one year cost nearly a million dollars, and said that, with the traditional approach, the average chronically homeless person used to cost Salt Lake City more than twenty thousand dollars a year. Putting someone into permanent housing costs the state just eight thousand dollars, and that’s after you include the cost of the case managers who work with the formerly homeless to help them adjust.
On Solution to Homelessness Lies at Hand
Posted on May 25 at 6:48 a.m.
Utah is winning the war on chronic homelessness with 'Housing First' program
Last month, officials announced that they had reduced by 91% the ranks of the chronically homeless — defined as someone who has spent at least one year full-time on the streets — and are now approaching "functional zero."
In 2005, when state officials began placing people in permanent housing, they counted 1,932 chronically homeless. Today, with 1,764 people housed, that number has plummeted to just 178 statewide. And officials have their sights set on those remaining.
"We know these individuals by name, know their situation," said Gordon Walker, director of the state Housing and Community Development Division. "And we can help them move out of chronic homelessness, if they choose."
Compassionate conservatism works.