Comments Tasermons Partner has made

That would be pretty stupid.

And for more reasons than you think. 

China and India get large portions of the oil via overland pipeline, so use of Navy wouldn't accomplish much, 'cept maybe war and loss of american lives, of course.

Really...and just how will the consumers "backlash", exactly?  Perhaps they will overthrow the government over lightbulbs?

They didn't "shut down" a rail line.  They stopped it from bein' built in the first place.

And apparently, you don't know much 'bout rail systems.  It's not like any rail line can be used for any purpose.  The rail-line was built by the company, and the company gets to decide it's use.

If anyone else wanted to use the line to transport any other freight, they'd need the company's permission (hence, they'd need to pay company big $$$ and make sure that the their freight didn't interfere with the delivery of the coal).

Passenger trains and freight lines don't mix very well.  Passenger trains on freight lines get delayed often because usually the company specifies that the freight trains get priority on stretches of sigle-line, so the passenger trains often haveta pull over and wait at junctions for the freight trains to pass.

Passenger trains work most efficently when they have their own, devoted, lines.

And the route of the line was already determined.  From the mines to the power plants.  If anyone else wanted to use the lines, they'd haveta have facilities already nearby the planned route, and their destination would also haveta be along the planned route.

Since the route was mostly rural, it's unlikely any passenger trains would do well.  And most freight these days go to factories near the cities, so once again, the route wouldn't provide many viable options for things other than coal.

We DO need to improve our rail systems, as ya said, but this wouldn't be the way to do it.

What does healthcare reform haveta do with the environment (other than some mostly small or inadvertant side-effects on things like smoking or population numbers)?

If the healthcare reformers wanna duke it out with him, then let 'em.  I care more 'bout what he does for/against the environment.

Prodigious!  And cheaper than a Prius too!  Toyota has done it again!

Methane is almost 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.  In other words, 20 lbs of CO2 are needed to have the same effect as 1 lb of methane.

Therefore, unless CO2 increased 20 fold as a result, the reduction in methane would still lead to an overall net reduction in GHG effect.

Why not just unplug the coffe maker when not in use?  Along with the toaster, the microwave, the blender, and all those other items that really are used only 1% of the time or less.  Plug 'em in when they're needed, and then unplug 'em when you're done.  Simple.

Actually, yes, it does.

The amount of CO2 produced to power the car from a typical coal plant is still less than amount of CO2 that would be emitted had the car been gas-powered.

And of course, there's always the chance that the energy was from a clean renewable source.

Horray!

The reason why their costs went up, as I only recently realized from the linked articles, is that they just went organic...NOT sustainable.

They apparently had to pay more to import "organic" feed for the cows from off-site, as opposed to non-organic feed.

A truly sustainable dairy wouldn't need to regularly import feed from off-site, 'specially in the spring and summer.  That's just bad grazing practices to do otherwise.  It means they have too many cows for too little natural on-site feed.

When did most people start to forget that the cheapest source of hydrogen on a massive scale is from fossil fuels?

It's the same thing we have now people!  Just with a different name.

Notice how Alaska is the only state not to submit, but yet it has one of the harshest climates?  Mewonders if Lady (and I use the term loosely) Palin has somethin' to do with it?

I still don't think this is right, though.  According to the NYT article, most of them have endured additional costs because of the organic feed they had to transport from the midwest. 

Would a truly sustainable dairy farm haveta import feed?  'Specially in the summer and spring?

Then again, just 'cause they're organic doesn't mean they're sustainable, I suppose.

Also, The chart on the NYT article shows that the demand for organic milk, while lowered, is still higher than it was at the start of 2008.  That doesn't seem like a huge drop overall (long-term).

The article also says that many of cuts are coming from Horiozon Organic, who Natrually thinks is fake organic anyway.

What operating debt?

Corn, cotton, and soy are all heavily subsidized crops.  If they actually had to pay for their own poisons, then maybe they would give it a second thought, but not so much when it's on Joe Taxpayer's dime.

I'd think that the real eco-friendly organic dairy farmers would sell to a niche market...generally, niche markets aren't as threatened by changes in their larger generic counterparts.

Maybe it's just the way the article is written, but it seems like just the regular smaller dairy farmers seem to be the ones most up in arms over this.

Can someone cite an example of an eco-friendly dairy (i.e., no outside feed, proper range, no chemicals, etc.) that's suffering as a result of this?

Two things bother me 'bout this...

First, China considers dams (hydropower) to be renewable, and good chunk (sometimes the vast majority) of the countries subsidies and financial backing for renewables goes to massive damming projects.  Though they may be "renewable", most of the damming projects are in no way environmentally friendly.

Second, percentage counts as well as bulk installment.  Even if China installs more, let's say wind and solar, than other countries, if they continue to install even more new coal plants right alongside, then there's no net gain (unless you count what it would've been had all the new energy came from coal).

Still, if it spurs us to develop more renewables in an "energy arms race", I'm all for it (so long as we don't do it haphazardly in the name of speedy progress).

Well to be fair, they should downplay CCS...cause it ain't happenin'! * rolls eyes *

Care to be alittle more specific on Monsanto's contractual (or other) regulations/agreements with crop-dusters concerning wayward spraying and other crop-dusting incidents?

Does the company have it's own own personal criteria in the contracts for weather conditions when spraying?  Buffer zones?  Pilot experience?  Monitoring? 

In other words, anything that goes beyond current public law/regulation and individual, unregualted pilot discretion?

Does your company take any specific steps that others would not or are not required to when it comes to crop-dusting (other than possible insurance coverage, of course)?

Anyone who thinks we can build 5 nuke plants a year for 20 years in a row has obviously sufferd radiation poisoning to the brain.

Even if ya don't believe CO2 is responsible for global warming, it is a universal fact that CO2 is acidic (a simple pH test can confirm this).

Increases in CO2 lead to increasingly acidic water and soil.

Therefore, CO2 is a pollutant.

Several problems with this article:

First, you provide us with percentages of rate of growth for imported dairy...but fail to recognize that even with those increases, the total percentage of imported dairy products is very small, compared to the amount produced domestically.  Dairy is one of those products that just doesn't make sense, economically or otherwise, to import in massive numbers, 'specially in un-powdered form.

So don't think that most of dairy will come from foreign countries anytime soon, okay?

Second, you failed to provide a solution or course of action.  You state the problem, what you think is the cause of the problem, and that we need to urge Congress and others to stop it.  But you didn't provide a means for us to do that or how to approach them, or what we need to urge them to do (other than a vague and general "Save the industry!").

This leads me to think that you have no plan of action, and thus are just trying to rally support and attention more than anything.  While it's good to bring attention to an issue and rally support, without a firm plan of action, it ain't gonna do anything.

I suggest you come up with a plan first, then rally supoort behind it.

Be sure to keep us updated.

There's a problem in relying to much on a "less-polluting bridge fuel" in that it will difficult to transition away from that infrastructure when conversion to zero-pollution energy sources is needed.

Yes, it meets Waxman for 2020 climate goals, but it won't meet the 2050 goals.

If we switch over to mostly natural gas, and build most new power plants and infrastructure around it, we'll have a hard time tearin' it all out a mere 30 years after we invest billions in it just to switch over to even polluting sources that will be needed to meet the 2050 goals.

Best to avoid it as much as possible in favor of renewables.  That way, we meet the 2050 goals sooner, and only have to rebuild the industry once, instead of potentially twice.

"Thus, their current request for a waiver is pretty much moot, but California could decide to petition for higher standards for later model years."

Are we sure of that?  An article in the Detroit Press seemed to indicate that this move would mean that states wouldn't be allowed to challenge the federal standards ever again, even after 2016.

Don't forget your edible nuts, seeds, and legumes.

They have incredibly long shelf life, can be stored easily, are healthy, and provide more energy (for their weight) than almost all other types of food out there.

Some (like sunflowers seeds for example) can also be planted even after years on the shelf, so that if regular food services go off-line long-term, you can readily help grow your own supply.

Also, rainwater barrels aren't just good for your garden, but can also serve well in case of emergencies, 'specially when they're covered (the exception, of course, being if the emergency involves radiation or some micros that are air-borne, in which case it isn't the best bet).  Same goes for the water condensation pipe that's outta your air-conditioner. 

So, it seems the new EPA head is cleanin' house in a good way, eh?

Problem is, even if he can fast-track it outta subcommittee, and pass it through regular committee, is there a way to fast-track it through the house and senate?

I think ya may be jumpin' the gun alittle here.

We're talkin' one small paragraph in which an unnamed official says, quite vaguely, that they simply exploring the option of an energy bill that may (or may not) contain those aspects.

That doesn't sound anything like concrete policy or an agenda to me, not at this point anyway.

Also think Houston Mayor Bill White is worthy.  Tried to fight air polluters in court, improved new urbanism developments in the inner city, oversaw light rail expansion, expanded recycling programs, added energy efficient traffic lights, added solar panels, built new parks (includin' Discovery Green), and had the city insulate older, lower income housing.

First, your assumption was that the solar arrays were of average size.  I'll admit I don't know what size they are, since I haven't asked some of them, and others (whom I did ask) I can't remember off the top of my head, but as I said, they do take up the vast majority of the roof space, so it may larger than average.  I do remeber however, that they were phv panels, and that their efficiency was on the high side.

Second, I don't know what the rate is that the utility is paying them back for the energy.  I kinda wonder where you got the 10 cents for kwh figure from?  Did you just make that up, or was it based on rates in your region?

Third, you also stated that the average home is 30 kwh per day.  I already said that the homes were NOT average.  They were, in fact, quite small (as I already said), and most had taken steps to improve efficiency beyond what an average home does.

Third, if you would like more proof, the local stations also did news stories in which several of the owners (including the cargo container residence) reported the amounts (and showed their bills to prove it), several months ago.  I remember in particular the local ABC (channel 13), CBS (channel 11), and PBS (channel 8) stations did news reports on it.  They also reported that the container house was applying for LEED certification, but I don't know if they ever got it.

However, I don't know how much all of them paid to have the panels installed (though I do know that one of them spent well over $50,000), so even though they are makin' money from it on a month-by-month basis, the total rate of return could be quite small, in terms of money spent.

Also be sure to contact your local Green Building Council.  Usually they'll have at least a few members who either live off-grid, or know how to go 'bout it and can provide great products, service, and advice to help people who wish to do it.

Some people can also be hooked into the grid, but produce enough energy at certain times of the day that they use more than they need, and send power back into the grid.  Thus, they actually produce more energy than they use.

Under law, utility companies must purchase the electricity that gets put into the grid.  Produce enough excess energy, and it can add up.  There are some people in Houston who make enough off their solar panels that they get $200-$300 a month from the utilities.  Their electric bills actually have little negative signs in front of the amount to show that the utility owes THEM money, and not the other way 'round.

Don't forget he also halted the "revisions" to the Endangered Species Act that Bushy tried to push through.

He gets high marks for that one.

On a slightly unrelated note: this new site Grist is becoming more frustrating!  I'm tired of havin' to try multiple times to post comments, or post comments multiple times and it not show up on the screen, but oddly, in the comment count!  What's up with that?

Um, I have a few more suggestions/problems to report, I'm afraid.

First, when you click to read all the comments a member has made, "View All", it loads ALL of the comments that person has ever made on the same page.

If a member has made several hundred, or even several thousand, comments, then it takes an extraordinarily long time for the comments to upload.  Could Grist possibly divide them up into pages of like 10 or 20 comments per page instead?  And then just have the pages in chronological order?

Also, when all of a members comments are listed on the same page, and you click on the link to read the other responses made on a thread the member has commented on, it doesn't link you to the comments.  It just takes you back to the top of the "View All" comments page.  You haveta click on the link to the thread to read the responses instead (so there really is no need for a link to view the other responses of the same thread).

And for some reason, on the main Grist web page, there's a huge block of white, blank space between the bottom article and the bottom tool/link bar.  Might wanna get rid of it.

And also, a suggestion:

There's often two advertisements between the text of an article and the comments below (often it's just the same advertisement twice over).  Instead of putting them one on top of the other (vertically oriented), could Grist possibly consider putting them side by side instead (horizontally oriented), so we don't haveta scroll down as far to get to the comments?

Thanks for listening!

I remember a time when almost ANY coverage for Earth Day was considered good (since it was so rare in major publications).  This is really good.

Any way around this measure?

Unless he plans to actually build those mid-rises himself, and then lease 'em, they will not end up lookin' like that.

Most likely what will happen is that each plat of land will be sold under "guidelines" towards environmental design and green architecture, but each individual developer will decide how best to meet that criteria.

"The price for a permit would be established by the Secretary of the Treasury and periodically calibrated to ensure that demand for the permits does not exceed an annual, national allocation"

In other words, there would always be enough permits for the industry as a whole. 

And that's the main problem.  If there are always enough permits overall, then the amount of pollution can increase.

It could be more costly to pollute, but that doesn't mean that pollution will go down.

In order to work effectively, long-term, there has be fewer credits than pollution that the industries want to expell.  That forces industries as a whole to cut pollution rates long-term, rather than just buying their way to get more permits alone.

The amount of credits available should be a reflection of what's needed to cut GHGs, not a reflection of what the industries can afford, or what their emission needs are.

First, I love the new comments box features, such as the different fonts and list types.

Second, I like the option of previewing our comments before posting...however, I really wish it wasn't mandatory to preview before posting.  There should be a Preview option and a Post Now option.

Also, it would be nice to have the Preview option when you Edit text as well.  Currently, you can only Post Comment when you click the Edit button, there is no Preview.

I also like the new reply option, and that replys are kept next to the original comment, as opposed to poppin' up halfway down the page.

Third, I have no problem with the new site colors, but I do have some problems with layout.  I'm not opposed to each article havin' photo shots, but they do seem to take up alot of space currently and they don't seem very organized.

It also takes much longer to scroll down both the main page, and each page in the article.

I also don't like that the advertisements take up so much room between the article and the comments below.  For a minute, I almost thought there were no comments, until I went further.  I could be wrong, but my recollection was that the advertisements weren't as obtrusive on the old site (which is probably good for the advertisers whom Grist relies on, but still annoys me alittle).

MOST IMPORTANT

Fourth, and this one is actually kinda the one that irks me the most...the avatars and related user options are on the RIGHT side of the screen and the comments/text on the LEFT side of the screen!

...Ya might wonder why this is so important.  Well, when the text backs right up to the LEFT side of the screen, it becomes harder to read, 'specially when it's not in paragraph form and has no indentations.  It appears as a solid block of text.  And since there's no space between the text and the edge of screen, it becomes uncomfortable, since most people are accustomed to viewing things that are closer to center of the screen.

In other words, there are no margins on the LEFT side of the screen.  MARGINS ARE GOOD, PLEASE ADD THEM!!  It's just as uncomfortable to read text on a screen with no margins, as it is to read text on a sheet of paper that starts straight at the edge and has no margins.  It just doesn't look right.

And by placing the avatars and assorted user info on the LEFT side of the comments/text, it acts an indentation and breaks up the blocks of text.  It also makes it easier/more comfortable to identify the user, since the natural prefernce of people (in Western countries) is to read from left to right.

I know that it seems like a minor thing, but you'll notice that almost every other website with comments sections and avatars puts their avatars to the LEFT of the text and provides some type of margin/box to seperate the text from the edge of the screen.

I noticed that on the main page, you have the pics on LEFT side of the screen and the the article summaries to the RIGHT of them.  It's the same concept.  It just looks better to have visual aids/pics (such as avatars) on the LEFT side of the text.

Since it's kinda the (unofficial) web/internet standard, and since it's so much easier on the eyes, I, personally, would really appreciate this (relatively) minor change, which I think would make a huge difference and make the website much easier on the eyes.

Please??

Excuses...

...if we seperate the bills, and then the clean-energy bill passes (which would probably be easier to do than the climate portion of the bill), then wouldn't the conservatives will simply point to it (as an excuse) and say that there would be no reason for a climate bill, when they just passed a clean-energy bill?

Then couldn't that leave the other industries without GHG regulation?On Mixing climate and energy legislation in the same bill is not a good idea posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 10 Responses

It should be pointed out...

Energy star-certified / LEED certified.  Energy-star is much easier to obtain (though Houston DOES have more than a few LEED buildings as well).

Second, many buildings in Houston (and Texas in general) can meet energy-star certification without even tryin'.

It's a HOT state.  If ya want the AC to stay in, it better be energy efficient.

Still, it's not like this is a bad thing at all...On Houston surprised at own rank on EPA green-building list posted 9 months ago 4 Responses

Probably went down in '08...

...They rose in 2007, but with high fuel prices for thr first part of 2008, and then the huge economic downturn in the last part, I would suspect that GHGs dropped in that year.On Greenhouse-gas emissions continue to grow in the U.S. posted 9 months ago 1 Response

Faster and failsafe (we hope)...

for other sectors, but not what the RES contributes beyond cap/trade. Unless, like I said above, you just really want to stick it to nuclear and efficiency, which is a weird combination of things to not like.

Usin' the two together would limit emissions faster.  Extra incentive.

Plus (though probably not a major reason why they're pushin' both at the same time), if any loopholes/backdoors appear in one part of the strategy (either cap/trade or RES), or if one bill/regulation fails to make it into reality, hopefully the other would act as a sorta "failsafe" in order to ensure that at least some type of action is bein' taken by the utilities.  
On Congress starts to outline how they'll meet Obama's directive on climate and energy legislation posted 9 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

Distance varies (by car and by plane)...

The LV-LA sort of intercity rail seems like it would compete with air travel rather than car travel

Isn't that the point though?  HSR is supposed to compete with distances that would otherwise be (mostly) coveted by air travelers.  Slower rail takes on routes with distances considered more easily drivable.

This what happened when Texas proposed HSR between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin.  It seemed like a great idea at first...so great that Southwest Airlines lobbied against it 'cause those Texas routes made up most of its profit at the time.

And killed it they did.

But with air travel so bogged down and so expensive these days (and yet still in great financial strains), now is the time to push for rail instead.On The stimulus bill provides serious money for high-speed rail posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

Old map...

...I know it says 2005 on the map, but it's really just a rehash.

This map (or an almost exact likeness of it) has been around since the early 1990s.

Alot of it is based on current Amtrak routes.  But really, it's more just wishful thinking than anything else.  

Many of these corridors have no specific regional organizations to really push or advocate for their development ('cept California and a few others).  And regional interest groups are key in directing money towards specific projects.

The money may go to lines that run similar to a few of these routes, but don't expect that this is what they're aiming for right now.On The stimulus bill provides serious money for high-speed rail posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 13 Responses

Time for relativity...

Under Bush, the Science and Energy Intelligence Quotient was at an all time high.

Since then, it has decreased precipitously.

Apparently those Princeton chaps can't tell time either.

Yo, dingus!  It's been less than 2 months since then!

* rolls eyes *On Obama administration puts halt to Bush-era oil and gas policies posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

Students need to learn geography...

That's right, Barack...21st century Bush policies beat your 1970s Jimmy Carter energy plan any time...

Funny the things they teach at Princeton.  

Apparently, certain pupils are taught that Emperor Bush ruled over Japan as well as America, and that he thus dictated Japanese energy policy.

But then again, they also don't seem to know the difference between climate and weather, so it's not much of a shocker.On Obama administration puts halt to Bush-era oil and gas policies posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

Questions:

It says his bill will not pre-empt standards in states that already have 'em.

This is very good, but what if the bill is actually signed and afterwards a state taht didn't have RES before wants to establish a new RES that's stricter than those outlined by the feds.

Would they be able to?

And even if they could, could some state legislators agrue against a stricter state RES by sayin' that the government already covers RES?

Also, since many states already get in excess of 4% from renewables currently, I don't personally see 4% by 2011 as much of a goal.

In fact, don't we get more than 4% from renewable nationwide currently (hydro included)?

And does the bill have any provisions to encourage on-site or local power production from renewables? On Bingaman unveils draft of renewable energy standard posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

The name of the game...er...package...

the fact remains that many things like this are not short-term stimuli, which is all that's warranted in the current economic crisis.

(Emphasis mine)

Well, that's why it's called a stimulus package and not a short-term stimulus package.

And why does it have to be just short-term?  What's wrong with long-term stimulus as well?  wouldn't that help alliviate future economic declines (be they more or less as dramatic as this one)?On Announcing energy efficiency order, Obama goes on stimulus attack posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 10 Responses

Mary, Mary, quite contrary...

...how do your offsets go?

So, how would Vancouver Olympics offset their emmisions?  What programs are thet payin' into in order to buy offsets?On Canadian athletes urge Olympic committee to fulfill eco-promises posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 8 Responses

Con Air...

...don't forget that USPS also runs a rather large fleet of airplanes as well.  Cuttin' back on days could affect pollution released by those as well.On Mail delivery cutbacks could trim vehicle emissions posted 10 months ago 11 Responses

I'm with Russ on this one...

...Livin' in Texas, I've seen many deals made between oil and gas companies and local communities and environmental groups.

And I've never know the oil and gas companies to live up to their end of the bargains voluntarily.

Any deal made would've been more worthless than the plastic hanger that held up the ink cartridge at the store, which they bought and put into the printer to print out the "cooperative" agreement.On Environmentalists go at it in Santa Barbara posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

Security...

The other gender bias is that women are far more likely to use public transit and walk to work than men.

Are there statistics on that one?

I know more than a few single, childless females, as well as few "soccer moms" who ride (alone) to work and store on a daily basis in big SUVs, even if it's just a few blocks away or they could take the bus.

Personally, I also know some women who take cars no matter what, since they feel more "vulnerable" walking or taking public transit.  They feel more "secure" in a vehicle they can control and lock up.

Weird, I know, but it doesn't seem to be an uncommon sentiment.

So, what gives?On Transportation policy and the working married woman posted 10 months ago 6 Responses

Actually, they're a bit low...

...remember that gas mileage for mail trucks is extremely low.  In addition to their large weight and non-aerodynamic boxy design (not to mention resistance from open doors), mail trucks make frequent stops and drive at very low speeds between mailboxes.  And they often idle while doing so.

On the other hand, if a day were cut off, it's likely that at least a portion of the mail that would've been delivered by USPS will simply be delievered by private shippers instead.

Still, I imagine that there would be at least a small cut in emissions.On Mail delivery cutbacks could trim vehicle emissions posted 10 months ago 11 Responses

I saw that...

...provision in the energy package of the stimulus bill and wondered what it meant.

Does it list specifically which proposed projects will recieve the money and in what amounts?On A $4.6 billion coal gift in stimulus package, record profits for FutureGen members posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

Highs and lows...

...started October much lower than 2007, but had (very slight) improvement after that, with slight increases in ice coverage over 2007 until this recent little burp.On Arctic sea ice drops below 2007 levels posted 10 months ago 1 Response

How to?

By 2030, older buildings would have to decrease their greenhouse-gas emissions and new buildings would be required to be emissions-free.

The other provision are okay, but this one is a bit confusin' to me.

First off, 2030 is a bit late in the timeline.  Existing buildings could reduce their energy consumption right away, no need to wait nearly 2 decades to do so.

I also wonder what they mean by "emissions-free".  Obviously, any building that uses energy from an outside grid would produce GHG emissions (unless the state has plans for the entire grid to go 100% renewable by 2030...and I don't think it does).

And I doubt they'd require all buildings to produce their energy on-site (as great as that would be).

So how can new buildings be emission free?

Do they just mean from the construction process alone?  In that case, I assume offsets would most likely be involved?On Washington state Senate aims to boost green jobs, construction posted 10 months ago 1 Response

Is that good or bad?...

...is the Oberstar amendment good or bad?

I mean, spendin' money on mass transit quickly is a good thing, 'specially when there is a backlog of projects.

But does the 90-day amendment make it harder for certain transit projects to get funds, or make some "pet" projects jump to the front of the list?

Or are they afraid that if the money sits still for too long that it'll be diverted into non-mass transit projects?On House debates adjustments to the stimulus package posted 10 months ago 1 Response

Oh, the (im)possibilities...

What about the family that takes their little trail bikes out on established forest roads, and putts around viewing nature and wildlife without tearing things up?

How is that even possible?

What type of wildlife sticks around when motorized bikes are nearby?

Perhaps ya don't realize it, but to most types of wildlife those things are awfully damn loud.  They'll scurry, fly, and flop away from sounds like that.

How can a family view wildife when it runs away from the general vicinity?

Noise is pollution too, don't forget.

And how can they enjoy the sights of nature when they blur through it at 30 miles an hour?On Utah ORV trail system a poor model posted 10 months, 1 week ago 24 Responses

Yay!

On Obama names clean-energy proponent as acting head of FERC posted 10 months, 1 week ago 1 Response

Capitol Power, or Chalk Power?....

a signal will be sent from the Potomac Energy Company to the Chalk Point Generation Station,

I thought the Capitol Power Plant provided that power, not the Chalk Point Station?

Not that that's any better, since Capitol Power Plant still uses the dirtiest type of coal, and Byrd and McConnell blocked efforts to clean it up.On Oval Office lights connected to mountaintop removal posted 10 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

It varies...

I'm not aware of an American equivalent of the ASA, but we sure could use one.

That generally falls under the FCC, 'specially for television and radio.

Sometimes state and local courts will also take up the issue as well, and rule (or try to) against what they believe to be fraudlant advertising (since advertising laws can vary by region).

Lawsuits also pick up the slack sometimes.On Advertising Standards Authority in U.K. banned a Renewable Fuels Association ad posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

Indirect benefits calculations...

I guess nobody can answer my question about how to make the rails - and any new ones - sustainable without massive infusions of our tax money.

Calculate the economic benefits of shorter commute times, less money on gas, insurance, car maintenance.  

Then include the decreased medical costs related to less traffic accidents and decreased vehicular pollution.  

Also include cost of less potential police protection and response to accidents and other car-related offenses.

And increased property values around transit stations.

And jobs created by the trains and their construction and maintenance.

Rail eventually pays for itself, in terms of money invested, it just does so indirectly by "filtering" the economic benefits to other segments of society, rather than as a direct profit related to the trains themselves.

Really, the same can be said (somewhat) of the freeways and most (non-toll) roadways.

We paid for the roads with tax money.

The roads themselves don't actually produce any money, and are dircetly unsustainable economically.

But when ya calculate the impact on business and transport of goods and people, the roads (hopefully) make money...but they do it by encouraging economic productivity in other areas that rely on (but aren't necessarily directly related to) road transportation.On Did the Obama team ax funding for mass transit in the stimulus bill? posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

It's for confirmation, not damnation...

Careful on language and language designed not to arm the opposition too soon? -- definitely.

I agree.  

Come on people, these are confirmation hearings!

If they go all out anti-coal now then they would have a heluva time bein' confirmed.

And how can they fight coal when they can't even be confirmed?

They're sayin' the "right things" in order to make the process as quick and painless as possible.

If they were really pro-coal they'd be alot more specific on the coal-related alternatives (i.e. "clean coal") and how they wanna fund it.

Vague and open-minded leads to greater chance of being confirmed...and then the real agenda shines through.On What Obama's green team has to say about coal posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 26 Responses

How does one build a tunnel...

...in an earthquake zone?

Then again, with an artery as major as that one, the other alternative would probably be a raised road, which would probably fair just as well in an earthquake.On Transportation projects get big money from state, feds posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

Not a native...

Bamboo is abundant and using it is far less ecologically destructive than using materials made from killing trees, for example.

Bamboo is only abundant in it's native habitat.

To mass produce bamboo here would require large-scale agricultural operations centered around an invasive species with an extremely fast growth and reproductive rate.  One which would provide little benefit to local native species in the way of food or shelter, due to it's unique qualities.

To import it in mass quantities contributes to shipping and pollution.

Best to just use recycled plastic or recycled wood materials and use bamboo as a material only in areas where it grows naturally.On How to make an industry irrelevant in one easy step posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

Bamboo is not green!

Well, it is, technically, 'cause it's a plant...but not in the environmental sense!On How to make an industry irrelevant in one easy step posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

No plan, no pumping...

What this country needs is a comprehensive energy plan dealing with oil and gas development,

Notice how he offers no such plan...just the "drill in ANWR" portion of it.

Hopefully, with majority of Congress in (non-Alaskan) Democratic control, any attempt to drill ANWR will be repulsed.On Alaska Dem. kicks off Congress with call for ANWR drilling posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

Question those numbers...

...given how the recent economic crisis has effected growth, and has forced dozens of major Chinese energy-guzzlin' plants to shut down, I question how they came up with numbers that say they'll need that much more energy in the coming years.

Incidentally, this is why the economic crisis is the perfect opportunity to push for better GHG controls.  This is the time when growth of polluting-industries will be at their lowest, and may actually decline.  If we intervene now, we can actually get a step-up.On China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015 posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 28 Responses

Cool can also be green...vegetated, that is...

...I'm with stopgreenpath on this one.

White roofs are great if you're lookin' for a very quick and very cheap way to reduce energy costs, but long term, new construction can do much better.

Solar panels are good, and the ultimate in cool roofs are green/vegetated roofs.  Vegetated roofs can reduce the temperature by 30 degress or more compared to conventional roof types.  Plus, they help insulate better in the winter months.

Not to mention less water runoff, and the water that is runoff is cleaner.

And the vegetation helps absorb GHGs and cleans the air, and can provide habitat for insects, birds, and small animals.

Even some opportunities for urban agriculture, if ya wanna take it that far.On White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

Percentages can be tricky rascals...

Did you know that the next generation of diesel-powered cars and SUVs is 98 percent cleaner than diesels sold just two years ago?

Be careful of percentages alone.  They can be tricky to those who would not look at the bigger picture.

For example, Hospital A says that their survival rate for trauma patients has increased 100% in the past decade, while Hospital B survival rate has increased only 20%.

Obviously Hospital A is the better choice...

...until you find out that Hospital B had a much higher recovery rate to begin with, and treats many more people than Hospital B.

Or, for another example, Forestry Group A says that they've increased the nuber of trees they plant by 1,000% while Forstry Group B has only increased by 20%

Obviously 1,000% is the way to go...

...until we learn that 1,000% of an original single tree planted equals only 10 trees, whereas 20% of a million trees planted equals 200,000 trees.

So while percentages are important, it's good to look at all the numbers as well.
On Diesel technology has peaked posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 12 Responses

Division...

$6.6 million divided by 3 years equals only $2.2 million a year.

Better than nothing, but seriously $2.2 million is like chump change to these guys.

Plus, most of the stuff the money goes towards seems like stuff that could be done for free or at minimal cost:

a community outreach and customer education initiative; incentives to replace air filters and upgrade to programmable thermostats, to install higher efficiency natural gas home heating furnaces and water heaters, and to schedule seasonal heating and air conditioning check-ups; and home weatherization for qualifying low-income customers. Also featured is a pilot program to encourage builders to install highly efficient ENERGY STAR® -rated natural gas appliances in new homes.

Seems mostly piecemeal at best.

Still, better than nothing, I suppose.
On Natural gas utility to spend $6.6 million on conservation and efficiency efforts posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 2 Responses

True, but still...

Better to dewater the salt slurry effluent and use it for thermal storage than pump it into a saline aquifer, I think.

True.

...although I'd rather they not be usin' the salt domes as oil/gas storage facilities to begin with.

Though I guess they could take salt from bodies of water that were oversalted due to human activities...but you'd still have the transport issues to think 'bout.

And in reality, I doubt they'd go for it, since outright traditional mining of the salt would probably be the cheapest option.
On World's biggest solar power tower to open in Spain posted 11 months ago 11 Responses

Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun...

My other question is if the planet was so polluted that you could barely see the sun, why would you make the robots solar powered?

My guess was that the air pollution got worse after everyone left and the garbage began to (slowly) decompose and what little vegetation was left died off and exposed the the dirt underneath, leading to erosion and duststorms.

Still, there was some sunlight.  Enough to power WALL-E daily for 700 years and keep the holo-projectors for the advertisements runnin', at least.

Plus, since it was the future, one could go as far to assume that solar panels would be far more efficient than today's models and be able to convert more energy with less sunlight.

...yeah, I spend some of my spare time thinkin' this stuff up and I could go out and get a life...

...but I like this more. ;)On WALL-E takes top honor and Quantum of Solace disappoints posted 11 months ago 8 Responses

Long shot, but it could happen...

The fact of the matter is we'll need more electric power in the future and we'll need more lines to carry the juice

Not if we focused on energy conservation and more local-source energy soultions.On Dynegy pulls out of coal-fired power plant partnership posted 11 months ago 4 Responses

Okay, so he's no green...

...but he doesn't haveta be.

He's the national security advisor.  While it would be nice if he was green, his primary concern, and the bulk of his experience and policy-making, will not deal directly with environmental issues.

So long as the science and environmental positions are filled with greens (and so far, they look okay, if not excellent), then that's the most important thing.On Obama's NSA pick promotes 'drill, baby, drill,' clean coal, and nuclear posted 11 months ago 6 Responses

Ice chuncks fall from turbines...

...so what?  They fall from tree branches too, so I guess we should get rid of all the trees as well?

And hey, dn't ice chuncks also fall from roof awnings and gutters?

Let's get rid of those too.

Oh, and power lines!  The ice can also fall from powerlines, so we better get rid of those too!

...okay people, the point here is, you're not babies, and we don't need to (nor can we) baby-proof the entire planet.  Get a grip.  Just take a few sensible precautions and get on with life.On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 Responses

Lesser of the evils...

...At least it's support for cellulosic ethanol and not primarily corn-based.On New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 61 Responses

And the grand fine is...

...$21,000.  Or aprox. 20 cents for every barrel spilled.

Anyone else know of a situation where a barrel of oil is worth only 20 cents?On South Korean court jails captain of oil tanker involved in 2007 spill posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

Human population growth is due to sex...

...and hopefully, the new administration will see that abstinence-only sex education is largely uneffective.

It'd also help if they restored federal funding to AIDS groups in Africa who also support abortions (a practice which was suspended under bushy).On Enviro coalition delivers a whopping transition plan to Obamaland posted 12 months ago 11 Responses

Wait 'n See...

...This by far isn't the first plan to help stop deforestation, and, by and large, they have all failed so far.

Still, at least they're payin' attention to the issue (or tryin' to defer attention after the media recently reported on the deforestation increase).On Brazil sets plan to cut deforestation by 70 percent over 10 years posted 12 months ago 4 Responses

Sounds like the right man for the job

On Obama appears likely to tap Rep. Raúl Grijalva for Sec. of Interior posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

Making a comparison...

...sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

I was (trying) to state that Stevens was a whore for the oil companies because he accepted gifts from the industry, and gave political favors in return.

And (though no felony convictions have arised in his case), it's almost certain that Mark has done the same (though I do admit I like him much more than I did Ted).

Hence, he is whore (they both are).

Yes, the people/public back 'em, but even though they do, they still shouldn't take favors.On Sen. Ted Stevens officially loses reelection bid posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

Definition of a whore...

but it is because that is what the people of Alaska want not because he's a whore for the oil industry.

Actually, it's both.

The reson why he is a convicted felon is 'cause he was a whore to the oil industry.  

He accepted "gifts" from them, and in exchange gave political favors.

Hence, a whore.On Sen. Ted Stevens officially loses reelection bid posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

On the other hand...

...as I recall, there were accusations of poaching by the very game wardens sworn to protect 'em, back when the area wasn't controlled by the rebels.

So...not much of an win either way?On Mountain gorillas threatened by violence in Congo posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

"Specific changes"?...

Let's take a look at some specific changes to the GM fleet:

Uh-huh...and has GM announced any plans to make to changes?

And have those "changes" been put into any part of the bailout measure?

And even so, what sort of "punishment" or guarantee do we have that after we give GM the money, they won't just try to find a way around these "changes"?
On Because small fixes make the biggest difference posted 1 year ago 12 Responses

Obstacles with that analysis...

Nationalize the electricity industry, and run it by public utilities.

While this is possible in many parts of the world (and is already the standard in many places), and while it also may possibly be what's best for America...I somehow doubt that we'd be able to nationalize our electric industry.

Almost every energy company would lobby against it, and even if Congress and the Prez somehow didn't bow to their pressure, there would undoubtably many serious legal challenges to such a proposal.

Remove limits on the amount of electricity that individual consumers can generate by themselves at home.

This one is good idea.  But caution must be taken so that some people don't decide to just put up a massive windfarm with dozens of industrial-scale turbines on their ranch, and then claim it to be "consumer generated", as some type of loophole.

Just got to get the legal typists to patch it up in such a way that people don't take advantage of it.

Bring all the big electricity production plants under a single public utility company

It'd be for the best, but as with No.1, the American political system makes such a thing extremely unlikely.

Impose strict deadlines on the shutting down of all fossil fuel plants.

This is good.  And it's what will eventually happen (though whether it be under federal mandate, or due to shiftin' sentiment and a patchwork of other legal and economical issues has yet to be seen).

Have an open design of generation 3+ reactors (with every country sharing their intellectual property) and do mass production of these modularized reactors. When done like this, new nuclear plants can be constructed at a rapid pace, and at a very low cost.

I could see some countries proposin' this, but it would also face challenges.

For one, it would be very hard for some countries to share intellectual property concernin' nuclear energy with other countries.

Particularly since there's likely to be concern that some countries will may use it for more than just producin' nuclear energy.

Also, some countries gain an awful lot of economical and geopolitical power by havin' nuclear expertise that's sometimes in high demand, and it'd take alot to get those countries to concede to share that expertise.

No. 5 and 6 would rely on factors that are either too far into the immediate future to be seen, or that we don't know for sure is even possible (the feasibility of mass production of nuclear batteries, and total disarmantle of nuclear weapons, for example), so to comment on any possible flaws would be far too specualtive on my part.  We'd haveta get through steps 1-4 first before we could get there (though ideally, the starts of steps 5 and 6 would be in the planning and conceptual stages even from the beginning, if that were to be the end result). On Three nuke-dependent communities vote for a nuclear phase-out posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

Little media coverage so far.

Here's another wonder: this AP story was totally overlooked by today's (11/14/08) Columbus (OH) Dispatch.

This story was overlooked by almost everyone so far.

I've seen only a few of the major papers are carryin' it, and I've yet to see it on either the Yahoo, Google, or AOL news pages.  It's not even in the top headlines under the Sciences and Environment News section.

Ya almost haveta keyword search just to find it.

Either few media realize the just far this ruling could reach in scale, or they're all waitin' on more concrete consensus of possible results before they make too much fuss 'bout it.On Sierra Club win shuts down 30 proposed coal plants at a stroke posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

What's the scenario?

The Truth : This is a joke. They can probably subsidize it for their citizens. But why would they export it to foreign countries (which don't pay them taxes), at a low price. Do you think the French are so masochistic that they run an export industry in order to make losses ?

Okay, so France exports energy nuclear energy?

How is that relevant, exactly?

They can't export it to us, and even if they could it wouldn't be anywhere close to what's needed to fulfill our needs.

Yes, France exports energy...but how does that effect our situation?

or the practical costs of how much the ABWR reactors costed in Japan.

Like France, Japan heavily subsidizes their power industry.

For that matter, the Japanese government owns huge stakes in the power companies.  The power comapnies are partially nationalised.

The Japanes have also had a long history of nuclear accidents.

(From wiki):Accidents of note include: the fast breeder Monju Nuclear Power Plant sodium leak in December 1995 (the reactor is still shut down), the Tokai reprocessing waste explosion in March 1997, the criticality accident at the Tokai fuel fabrication facility in September 1999 and a widespread falsification scandal starting in August 2002 that lead to shut down all of Tokyo Electric Power Company's 17 nuclear reactors. Tokyo Electric's officials had falsified inspection records and attempted to hide cracks in reactor vessel shrouds in 13 of its 17 units.

Also, on 9 August 2004 five workers were killed after a steam leak at the Mihama-3 station. The subsequent investigation revealed a serious lack in systematic inspection in Japanese nuclear plants, which led to a massive inspection program.

But more importantly, you've still yet to address how we can feasibly add at least 500 nuclear power plants to our current grid in a reasonable timeframe.

Give me a reasonable scenario where can accomplish this feat, and I wouldn't oppose it as a possible solution.

'Cause I personally have pondered it, but I can't come up with a scenario where the addition of at least 500 new nuclear plants in a reasonable timescale is likely.
On Three nuke-dependent communities vote for a nuclear phase-out posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

Non-binding means...

...non-binding.

Just keep that in mind.On Nonbinding agreement reached to breach Klamath River dams by 2020 posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

There's an old sayin'...

...amongst the architects, landscape architects, city planners, ecological system restoration experts, and evn amongst interior designers...

"If the engineers had an ounce of creativity or imagination...then the rest of us would be out of a job."

An engineer's duty is to come up with the most efficient and cost-efficient way of construction...all other duties and considerations come second.

And, as I know from personal and professional experience...engineers absolutely HATE IT when they have to change their plans later to accomodate a new factor or input, or if they're (gasp) forced to come up with an innovative solution.

In fact, only a few of 'em are even capable of comin' up with anything that's new, innovative, or outside established parameters.

It just goes against their nature.On Down the bureaucratic rabbit hole with the Corps of Engineers posted 1 year ago 1 Response

20 years too late...

Our industry plans to be on the leading edge of the new energy economy. Our work towards meeting a national solution could create the biggest wave of "green jobs" our nation has seen as automakers produce more cars that use less fuel and produce less carbon dioxide.

Dude, the Japanese and Korean car companies already did that...20 years ago.

And you expect the Americans to catch up with them in just a few years?

Yes, we've all heard 'bout the Chevy Volt and a few of the other more innovative models, but even according to the industries own predictions, they don't plan on pushing those models into a significant portion of the overall production.

Why?  Because they think it's "less cost efficient" to produce that more "conventional" models.

And yet, had they focused on those more innovative models to begin with, their companies wouldn't be hittin' bottom right 'bout now.

Ironic, no?

Plus, the number of jobs provided and the economic impact that you quoted in your article are for the automobile industry as a whole...including foreign car companies.  In fact, a significant amount of the jobs and economic impact are from foreign companies.

The thing is, the foreign car companies aren't in danger of collapse.

They just want a bailout primarily for American car companies, which actually produce far less vehicles for the American public than the foreign companies do.

The thing is, foreign car companies, in general, are far more efficient, have better gas mileage, safety features, require less maintenance, and have better customer satisfaction ratings than the American companies do.

And their vehicles are generally comparable (or cheaper) in price.

And it's not like they're takin' away American jobs.  The majority of cars produced by foreign car companies and sold in America are made in America.

At plants that are on American soil and hire Americans to work 'em.

And unlike the American companies, they aren't subsidized by our own government to nearly the same extent.

So, the question is, with the foreign car companies already producing better products, at reasonable prices, by using American workers, why, exactly, should we subsidize (more than we already have) the American car companies who, in fact, now make up a minority of the cars sold in the country?

They say they need to money to increase production on fuel efficient vehicles...why not just go with the car companies that ALREADY make fuel efficient vehicles, and have done so for decades?

Afterall, the best way to increase America's fuel efficieny would be if the companies who make the most inefficient vehicles went under and stopped production.

Then, everyone would buy and drive the more fuel-efficent vehicles produced by the other companies.On Automotive industry provides $13 million jobs, generates $10 billion in tax revenue posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

This does not bode well

On More on the proposed 'National Energy Council' posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

Maybe, but...

...what does the EPA haveta do with vaccinations?On A roundup of possible Cabinet picks for environment-related positions posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

Airports...

To fly from San Diego to Sacramento, or New York or Paris we only need two miles of concrete at each end. Compare that to the material in a rail line. Consider all the earth moving, compacting, concrete and steel work etc, using enormous amounts of diesel fuel, natural gas and coal.

Hate to break it to ya, but it takes a little more than just a concrete runway to build and operate a modern-day major airport.

Plus air travel is among the least efficient in terms of energy efficieny and GHG emissions.  Much worse than either trains or cars.
On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

Wouldn't work...

... geez think of all the solar-thermal plants we could have built for the same money.

Yeah, and just how many average joes do ya know would be willin' to vote to spend the money for that?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but chances are they'd never vote for it.

It's not "visible", and the energy tycoons would argue that it'd rack up their utility costs.
On A real path to energy independence posted 1 year ago 31 Responses

Did it actually...

...mention any concrete steps, a plan, or a timeline for such a change?

Or was it just a vague goal they hope to be aiming towards?On Three nuke-dependent communities vote for a nuclear phase-out posted 1 year ago 17 Responses

In other words...

...Obama is gonna prez, and the Canadian tar-buggers are now worried.On Canada proposes joint climate agreement with U.S. to spare its oil-sands projects posted 1 year ago 2 Responses

Once again, taxis aren't mass transit...

Now, spread that among 3 people sharing a cab and those 3 bus fares would buy you nearly $100 worth of taxi -- more than enough to cover most daily commutes.

But do most people share cabs into work?  No.
People don't carpool in cabs.

So dividing up the fare for cabs isn't an accurate way of showing real costs.

Few people share cabs for commutes, therefore taxis are not mass transit.

Sheesh, and ya claim ya went to Princeton?  Where?  Princeton, Oklahoma, Community College?
On NYC cabs don't have to bump up fuel efficiency, judge rules posted 1 year ago 10 Responses

Sooner than that...

...at our current rate and increase in consumption of fossil fuels, we'll run out long before 2090.

Obviously, we would need to switch long before then.On Report shows how world can eliminate fossil fuels by 2090 while sustaining economic growth posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Went as a janitor, maybe...

I went to Princeton University.

Okay, now let me ask this...did you actually graduate Princeton?

And if so, what was your field/major?

And in what way would it qualify you as an expert in global climate change?On Polar warming directly attributed to humans, study says posted 1 year ago 13 Responses

Yep...

Environmental groups should sue to stop the proposed rules.  Then, when Obama gets into office and if he's is worth a crap, he'll settle the suit by retracting the rules.  End of story.

That's essentially the plan, yes.
On White House begins review of controversial EPA rule posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

Don't worry...

...hopefully, OPEC will take care of it.On As gas prices go down, bad driving habits go up posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Has the ad...

...actually appeared on television...or is just on the internet?On LCV targets McCain's record on renewable energy posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Sorry, excuse my grammar...

...meant to say the plants would NOT come back if the soil was vaporized by a wildfire, since the root systems would be vaporized as well.

...we need edit buttons already!On Where the presidential candidates stand on public-lands issues posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

Good idea...

...everybody wins!

...that is of course, assuming, that they actually enforce it and corruption doesn't get in the way.On U.S. agrees to debt-for-nature swap to preserve Peru rainforests posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Defintions mixed...

Most old growth forests were managed into that state

You have your definitions mixed up.

An old growth forest is old growth because the plants and tress are naturally adapted to long life cycles with little regenration, and what regeneration there is will often be a slow process.

When a naturally regenerative system (like a forest that historically had fire every few years) is allowed to overgrow, that is not an old-growth forest.

Most of the trees and plants are adapted to fire and regeneration and when regenration does not occur, most of the trees die by a certain age and are left to rot, rather to be burned and regenerated.  

They won't live much longer than they would even if there had been burnin'.  Trees in regenerative systems have evolved with shorter life spans than old-growth forests.  Takin' away the fire doesn't usually lengthen the trees' life spans in general, it just allows a far greater buildup of dead materials.

To reinterate: Old groth forests DO NOT NEED regeneration.  The trees, plants, and animals in old groth forests have evolved in a system where regeneration is rare.  To introduce unnatural levels of regeneration into old growth system screws up the natural ecology of the forest.

Only areas that have historically had regenerative systems (i.e.fire) should be considered for regenerative management principles.On Where the presidential candidates stand on public-lands issues posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

Someone needs to think things through...

There has been no rise in global temperatures for the last 11 years.

There has been no rise in ocean temperatures for the last 5 years.

There has been no rise in sea level for the last 3 years.

So the Artic meltdown of 2007 and 2008 (the two lowest years on record) occured by magic then?

So tell me, how, exactly, does melt of the Artic ice increase so dramatically if temperatures don't rise?

If the air temps are the same, and the ocean temps are the same, then there should be no increased melt, correct?

Methinks ya might wanna check your facts, hmm? ;)On European Union sticks by GHG plan, United Kingdom goes for 80 percent cut posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Aviation to the Euro...

...also, much of the U.K.'s flight traffic is into and from the EU, which will sonn put in place a carbon tax of sorts on all flights into and outta the region.On European Union sticks by GHG plan, United Kingdom goes for 80 percent cut posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Shoe-in!

Seriously, the Nobels really went downhill starting a few years ago

Yes, 'cause we all know you're so much smarter than the nobel prize winners are. rolls eyes

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll make one for auto mechanics soon, and then you'll be a shoe-in!On Nobelist Paul Crutzen suggests that a slowdown in the economy could be good for the climate posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Hit 'em while they're hot...

...while I agree regulations are best, I doubt that we could get regulations passed that would have nearly as much of an impact as a world-wide economic recession would.

And though it'll be even harder to pass regulations now (or maybe not, with change of guard possibly afoot), we haveta push for it now more than ever.

With regs and the economic recession combined, we might actually make a sizable dent, much more so than if it was just one or the other.On Nobelist Paul Crutzen suggests that a slowdown in the economy could be good for the climate posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Quote:

With the ads ending a five-week run last month and no plans to revive it, the county considers the legal issues moot.

Go ahead and let Nestle waste their money.

It'll only draw more attention to the issue and get more people to realize what a rip-off bottled water can be.On Nestle flexes its muscles at Miami water utility posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

Gas prices...

What would make a dent on transportation emissions?

Hopefully, high gas prices will do a number on it's own.On A price on carbon will not tackle transportation pollution posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

No need...

You could have fooled me.

No need.  You've been there and done that...and still are...again...and again...
On Attention Catholics posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Yeah, right...

You are a false religion.

/Rolls eyes/  Ya wanna see a fake religion?  

Watch American football.
On Attention Catholics posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Well, at least...

...they won't get in the way of states this time.On EPA declines to set standard for perchlorate in drinking water posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

I wish...

Environmentalism is a religion. So much for separation of church and state

I wish.  Then we could get a massive tax break for bein' a church.

Like the tax breaks those huge mega-churches with big-screen televisions inside former sports stadiums that rake in millions of dollars get.

Only we wouldn't use the savings on McMansions and jet planes for the pastor's family.

LOLOn Attention Catholics posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Governor Perry's at fault...

...Mayor White and the regional planning council actually wanted to call for stricter air-pollution standards and wanted to shut down some petrochem plants that were the worst offenders.

Then the manufacturer's association called the governor, who also picks the heads for the TCEQ (our lame-duck environmental agency who hasn't fined anyone for air-pollution violations in years).

He got 'em to petition the EPA for a waiver so they wouldn't actually haveta do anything, like say, their jobs, and so the petrochems could have more time to comply (or not comply, rather).

He also tried to block White and the city when they tried to make a law declaring air pollution of certain types in certain amounts as a nuisance to public health under city codes and punishment of up to $20,000 a day per violation.

The petrochems weren't happy 'bout that.On Houston joins Los Angeles in having 'severe' smog problem posted 1 year, 1 month ago 3 Responses

Good for solar...

...bad for everything else.

I don't think it was worth it.  We only get 1 year for wind, and we get coal and shale on top of it.

Not worth it.On House passes bailout plan with extensions for renewables, sends to Bush's desk posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Thanks Kate...

...but unfortunately, unless the House changes it again, that means the bill isn't worth much, I'm afraid.

Let's hope it either doesn't pass, or that the House changes it.On Senate approves bailout bill with renewable-energy tax-credit extensions posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Is it the original House version...

...that strips out tax incentives for oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid fuels.

'Cause if so, it's a good thing.

But if the Senate revised it again, I doubt it'd be as worth much.On Senate approves bailout bill with renewable-energy tax-credit extensions posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Good start...

...now let's see how well it stands up in Equadorian courts.On Ecuador approves new constitution granting inalienable rights to nature posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

I do it all the time...

...trust me, they don't care where the bag came from.

Their cashiers, not CEOs.  They have no real loyalty to the store, it's just the one that they got the job at for the time.

They understand most people shop at differet store.  Most of THEM shop at different stores, for that matter.

They won't worry or get upset if they see a bag from a rival store.  Afterall, you're shoppin' in their store now, aren't ya? ;)On Reusable shopping bags not so green if you don't use 'em posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

So, it's up to the House now...

...the bill could go either way.  

Right now, the only really good thing I see outta it is the 8-year renewal for solar.

1 year for wind isn't much, 'specially when combined for incentives for tar sands.

And I don't think the taxes on oil will actually do much.

Either the House strips somes bad stuff, adds some good stuff, or we stall untill we get a new Congress and go through the process again.

Otherwise, I, personally, don't think this bill is worth it.On Senate passes renewable tax credits on the ninth attempt posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Crazy for good...

There is no chance the bill the House passed will become law. Zero. It's unlikely there will be any new energy law out of this Congress.

Call me crazy (more than I already am), but I think that's a good thing.

We don't have a 2/3 majority and the only bill bushy would've allowed would be a bad one, so in this case, I say none is better than some.

I doubt we could've gotten a bill passed where the benefits outweighed the losses in our favor, so better to have than bill at all than a bill that'd cause more harm than good.On 'Environmental purists' unhappy with House Dem energy bill posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses

No offense, but...

directs the USDA to work in cooperation with other federal and state agencies, NGOs, and others to establish technical guidelines for measuring environmental services, as well as a verification process. Environmental service markets could cover such areas as water and air quality and habitat protection, but the initial focus is to be on carbon markets.

...it seems awfully vague.  I don't see anthing 'bout standards or any sorta language that would require their input into any of these fields if they didn't want to give their advice (or if others didn't want them to give it).

Also, it's not the USDA is the most eco-friendly thing out there (to be blunt, they clash heads with even moderate environmentalists often enough to cause major migrains for the movement), so even if they give their input, it wouldn't necessarily be the type of input that would lead to a cleaner environment to begin with.On A little noted provision of the new Farm Bill posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

What type...

and make adjustments to the funding system for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

What kind of adjustments?

The good kind, or the bad kind?
On Bipartisan deal in Senate would extend renewable tax credits posted 1 year, 2 months ago 1 Response

Organics encourage larger ag. workforce...

I have nothing against organic food in highly developed, wealthy markets with few poor people.

But it would be a criminal disaster to implement organic food projects in countries where people still have to farm and work to make a living.

Jonas, most countries with a high percentage of agricultural workers ALREADY rely mostly organic foods.

That's usually why they have so many people employeed as farmers to begin with.

Coutries with industrial-scale agriculture typically require less of a workforce, since most of the process is mechanized and requires relatively little labor.

Organic farming generally encourages a larger agricultural workforce, especially if it's on a local or small-scale production models.On New data show that 2008 organic food sales will reach $32.9 billion posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

The reududs will oppose it...

...'cause it doesn't include drilling off all the coasts, repeals tax cuts to industries, and doesn't include shale oil.

They'll fight it with their own proposal, the Dems will hold out until the elections are passed,

and with any luck, the Dems will gain enough seats so that the next time this comes up, they can just dump the drilling provisions altogether, and focus on the other stuff.On House Democrats unveil their energy package posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Not if the Dems gain seats...

The Oil drilling ban ends in January.
Republicans can get their renewed offshore oil drilling merely by default.

Not if the Democrats remain in control and gain seats in the Congress.

It's parta the reason why they're tryin' to push this befor the November elections. On Reid to hold votes on three drilling plans next week posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Raise gas tax?...

Um, hello...  a fund paid for by gas tax revenue is not keeping up with the costs associated with infrastructure needed FOR CARS.

They won't raise gas taxes 'cause it'll be too unpopular.

Yes, they'll still haveta raise taxes anyway, in other areas, and it will cost the same.

But just sayin' the words "gas" and "tax" in Congress is enough to shoot it down, even though they'll end up payin' for it through other taxes anyway.

People are just scared and ignorant like that.On Federal Highway Trust Fund nearly depleted due to driving cutback posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Best saying EVER!!...

If we run over a skunk on the road, will we meet it again in Heaven when we die?  Yes, absolutely, and you will become inseparable pals.  And the stink will become positively celestial, even divine.

That was...PURE GENIUS!!

If ya don't mind, I think I might use that as a sig. ;)
On New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Sink?...

They'll sink.

What will sink?

The oceans?  

The iceflows?

That's not even possible, ya realize?  Ice floats on water...'specially salt water.
On New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Not lame, just long-live forests...

You provide little consideration to the fact that clearcuts are a viable tool for regenerating a forest in situations that would not call for a different method.

The problem there is that the forests there don't need to be regenerated.

Oregon is mostly old-growth forests ('cept for the areas that have been cut down).  In order for their historic or "traditional" ecological systems to fuction properly, there should only be a relatively small percentage of new growth.

Regenerative systems work best in areas that historically faced periodic deforestation from natural causes, most commonly periodic forest fires.

But fires were relatively rare in Oregon due to the high amounts of rainfall and general cool, humid climate.

So old growth forests generally, by and large, persevered and the ecology of the region evolved around that principle.

So...no...regenerative systems are not very helpful in the Cascadia region.On Google knows what you're doing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 13 Responses

Bad thing...

Higher speeds, yeah, maybe in some parts, but overall the storms are getting more spread out.

Wouldn't taht be a bad thing?

More area generally equals more destruction.

'Specially since they're stronger as well as bigger.On Nature: Hurricanes are getting fiercer posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Population and resource control...

As E. O. Wilson has pointed out, however, it would be relatively inexpensive to create several "DMZs" that might protect, I think, some 90% of species from extinction. Much less expensive than fighting wars.

True, but ya haveta figure...would they?

If it were peacetime, would they devote the time, energy, and money into such things when they could just develop the area instead?  Usually, the answer is no.

several thousand additional Americans still alive, no Bin Laden encouraging attacks on the U.S., hundreds of thousands of Iraqis still alive,

That's another thing.  From a humanitarian standpoint, war is of course bad since it causes so much death.

However, death can also be equated to population control.  If several hundred thousand people die, then lookin' at it from an entirely non-emotional or non-sentimental perspectyive, that several hundred thousand people who aren't consumin' resources or emitting pollution.

Assuming that the resources that went into the war (and thus the killing of the people) was less than what those people (or any future offspring) would have consumed had they remained alive, then the overall net benefit to the environment and natural resources is most likely positive.

...but that's only if emotions, sentiments, and morals aren't involved.  

So yes, war is still bad.On Rights of humans, rights of nature posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Scale...

...I find the scale of the shot interestin'.

Notice that its' maybe 5 by 5 miles or so.

So the individual plots really aren't that large, but with so many of 'em they really have a deep impact.On Google knows what you're doing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 13 Responses

This is better...

...'specially for the speedboats.

However, there is talk of havin' the federal standard not allow even stricter state standards to be in place, which concerns me.On EPA requires emissions cuts by lawn mowers and speedboats posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

One and the same...

See Slavoj Zizek: nature has no rights, because it doesn't care about us.

Most humans don't care for each other either.

So, why should we have rights?

The only reason why we should respect nature, is for our own survival. Not because of the survival of nature.

The two are one and the same.  Nature's survival and our own are linked.  Therefore, the existence of both should be respected.

Besides that, respecting nature just on the basis of our own survival hasn't worked very well so far.

We end up trying to control Nature's existence to meet our own needs and improve what we percieve as our chances of survival by "improving" our lifestyle.

But we inevitably alter it to such a great a extent that it ceases to become Nature at all.  Thus, we end up destroying that which supports us and replacing it with an inadequate substitute...ourselves.

And as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, humankind cannot support itself alone, and we cannot control or take the place of Nature, no matter how well planned or ambitious our goals are.

Therefore, Nature has the right to exist in its own form.
On New Ecuador constitution would give nature inalienable rights posted 1 year, 2 months ago 14 Responses

I'm pretty sure...

...that high gas prices will force 'em to re-evaluate those figures, whether they want to or not.On U.S. EPA criticizes DOT over fuel-economy standards posted 1 year, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Long term and short term...

But if they did make a longer life filter they would only need to increase its price, right?

Short-term yes, long-term, no.

Intial price hike would be offset by no longer havin' to go out and but more multiple replacements that would eventually cost more.

Kinda like LED or CFL lights.  They cost more than "traditional" lightbulbs, but they last so long that it actually costs more with traditional bulbs due to the number of replacements bulbs that a person would buy over the lifetime of just LED or CFL.

But then again, since when have most people really been concerned 'bout their long-term economics?
On Campaign calls on Brita to recycle water filters posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

On the other hand...

...if the hurricane raises crude prices, they may try to use it as parat their "drilling expansion" platform, by sayin' that by having drilling on multiple caosts, we can still have energy production runnin' should one coast be faced by such a disaster.

...it won't be true, of course, but they might use it nonetheless.
On Natural disasters, evacuated oil rigs might cause a PR disaster for the GOP posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

More equals less...

This guy's logic is above mine.  There are 500k square miles MORE ice this year than last yet this proves the ice is in a death spiral????

That's because last year was the lowest level.  This year, being the second-lowest, would have more ice.

But all years, except last year, have had MORE ice than this one.

Unfortunately, summer isn't over yet, and peak ice melt may not have been met yet, meaning there's still a chance that THIS YEAR could be lowest.

A very disturbing trend.

Not to mention that the ice, on average, is thinner than it should be.On Arctic ice in a 'death spiral' as it hits second-lowest point ever posted 1 year, 3 months ago 16 Responses

All sides...

...they get sued by the greens for the listing, they get sued by the rusts for the listing, they get sued by the crudes for the listing, so they take it from all sides.

That's what they get for not takin' a firm stance to begin with.On Industry groups sue Interior over polar bear posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

All 'bout the money honey...

(2) He bet on wind, but forgot to RTFM -- wind is best situated in low density areas, but electricity is needed in high density areas.

That's why he lobbied sucessfully) for the Texas legislature and ERCOT to agree to build $10 billion worth of transimission capacitiy to handle the load form his and other wind farms.

Which, in turn, also allowed him to lobby ofr dual-use utility space so he could place water pipeline under the transmission lines and send billions of gallons of water
from the plains aquifers to Dallas.

All 'bout the money honey.
On T. Boone Pickens embraces progressive policies but not progressive politicians posted 1 year, 3 months ago 25 Responses

This is why...

...whenever I go to a resturaunt that serves chips or bread, I take it home with me, even if I finish my meal and don't need a to-go for it.

Most people don't think 'bout it, but they're required to throw out those half-eaten bowls of complimentary bread and chips...it adds up to alotta waste.

However there are some places in certain cities that will take their leftover food and donate it to a local food organization.

A CiCi's pizza place my roomate worked for did that.  They serve pizza buffets, so at the end of the day, they'd offer boxes so that people who were there at closin' could take home what was left.  Any left over would be picked up via a food donation program.  The driver would make rounds to all the resturaunts at the end of the day and take their leftovers back to the shelters.  It had to be eaten within a few days, and only food that hadn't been touched by any customers could be provided (health regulations), but it still provided alotta food.On We waste a lot of food and a lot of water, says report posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Cut the middle man...

Then, on the back end, begin plugging in the Nocera process, wind to hydrogen and solar to hydrogen generators and voila -- a New World!

jabailo, why create a middle man?  Why not just use wind and solar directly for our energy?  

Wouldn't there be additional energy lost in the process of sloar/wind to hydrogen to electric energy conversion compared to just a wolar/wind direct to electric energy conversion?

Doesn't seem very efficient.
On Short-term dip in oil prices will not offset long-term increases posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

Unnderestimation...

Pristine temperate forest stores three times more carbon than currently estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Considerin' the rapid rate of deforestation, it's probably a very good thing that they've underestimated their effects, as their are goin' to be less of 'em in the future.

If they took the 3-fold carbon storage amount into account, it might lead to a false impression that global climate change will have more of a buffer than it really will, given the current rate of destruction (given that the IPCC doesn't take illegal loggin' into account as much as it should, and their estimates for future forest coverage are probably optimistic).

 On IPCC needs to update projections to include deforestation feedbacks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Jabailo makes my day, I love his funnies! : )

And why, pray tell, would the ocean have a different relationship to CO2 than air?

You're kiddin', right?

Why the heck do ya think we're in such a fuss 'bout ocean acidification?

Short answer (don't worry, you'll eventually understand fully when they teach it to ya by the time you're in middle school):  Oceans have a different chemical makeup than air (ya know, it's that H2O stuff), so it reacts differently to certain substances and elements than air does because of it's unique properties (bein' made of water and all).

For instance, ever notice how carbonated beverages can quench your thirst (despite bein' unhealthy for ya), while carbonated air just doesn't seem to do the trick?On Ocean temperture levels indicate planet has kept warming since 1998 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 Responses

Very good!

On California to phase out lead weights on tires by end of 2009 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Tilapia?...

...most people don't use those as food anymore.  In fcat, I know several people who use the oil they secret as a bio-fuel.On Putting cow hormones into fish food makes them balloon posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Won't be ther for long...

...so, hopefully, damage would be minimized.On Cheney aide poised to head key division of Department of Energy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 1 Response

Overall net benefit...

..I can see how it might inadvertantly effect some projects such as yours, but given the impact from developments, dams, mining, and the like, and the (sometimes piecemeal, but sometimes not, but still important) and what the impact could be if no mitigation or environmental assessments were performed on these projects, then, on the whole, doesn't the ESA create more benefits long-term to wildlife rather than hinderances?

I don't really buy the "discourages listing" argument.  I know plenty of folks (unfortunately) who would still try to "eliminate" any chance someone would "stumble" across a listed species on their land, even if the proposed changes went into effect.

Whether or not it is listed, and whatever protection it is under, makes little difference to 'em.  They think somethin' will come of it no matter what (likely bad media coverage), so they think it's best to "head-off" the problem before anyone finds out it's a "problem" to begin with.

If ya know what I mean.

I'm also concerned 'cause I don't really think that any potential money "saved" from this streamlining process will actually be put into others areas covered by the ESA, such as conservation and enforcement (at least under this administration's proposal).  I think it'll just turn out to be an overall budget swipe for the ESA.  And with a smaller budget already in place, it will be even easier to widdle it down further, if the politicans deem it so.On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Propoganda...

...good propoganda, but still propoganda.On Energy in the Democratic platform posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Questions, please....

Currently in fact I am prevented from starting a project to benefit arroyo toad habitat by manually removing invasive species because of the ESA and the delays it causes.

I understand the privacy concerns of environmental projects (which I've had to deal with myself), but perhaps ya could be more specific.

Like how would the proposed changes to the ESA streamline your particular project?

The way I understand it, most of the changes are aimed at projects that would require mitigation and interact with development.

If your project, which, at first glance, seems to be solely aimed at restoration of habitat, and has nothin' to do with development, then how would the proposed changes streamline your process?On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

WMDs...

...sounds like several of those projects are aimed more at hydrogen as a military use (possibly weapons), more than for civilian vehicular use.

Then again, since when did Los Alamos care 'bout emissions standards (or the humans that drive 'em, for that matter?)On Department of Energy flushes $15 million down the hydrogen toilet posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 Responses

Hard pressed...

BUT, I can say that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually works with the ESA on a daily basis (I do) who thinks the law does not need some streamlining and reform.

That's 'cause most people who do work with it on a daily basis are developers, electric, and mining companies, etc. who would benefit finacially from seein' the Environmental Impact Statements bein' virtually abolished.

Kinda like how there aren't many people in the tobacco industry who wish those pesky anti-smokin' legislations would go away.On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

More questons...

And if it is possible to get lots of hydrogen from oil, and do it without producing CO2, then isn't that still a good thing?

Seperation of hydrogen from oil still creates CO2.

Plus, there's still the pollution from drilling and processing.

And the fact that as a non-renewable resource, it will still run out eventually.

The Nocera method has also yet to be proven at a large scale over long distances in regular driving conditions.

And it's still very expensive, unfortunately.

Then there's also the fact that even if water were used for the process, it would take billions of gallons annually for just the United States alone.  The water would have to be fresh and also fairly clean (requiring energy-intensive filtration).

And fresh water isn't nearly as abundant as it used to be, so just how are we gonna sustain that amount of consumption?On Fleet of hydrogen concept vehicles crosses U.S. as part of Hydrogen Road Tour posted 1 year, 3 months ago 28 Responses

Still higher...

...even with the recent decline in prices, the price per gallon in America is still nearly a dollar over what it was last year.

An last year, like most years, prices went down around this time before they went back up again.

So if we see it go back up again (and we will), I'm pretty sure the long-term trend of prices risin' a dollar a year should be enough to transition the general population to more efficiency, regardless of short-term decline hic-ups.On Demand destruction is driving prices down, but is that a good thing? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Anyone...

...they'd accept sponsorship from any corporation that paid the money.  That's generally how sponorships work.On Exxon sponsors political coverage posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Ranchland =/= greenland

...While I agree that localized solar energy would be much better, the land set for conversion is already ranchland.  

And in California, that means that most of the native grasses and prairie plants have already been wiped out to make way for introduced "feed" species.  And plus, most ranchland is overgrazed anyways.

In other words, the land's already screwed anyways, and it's not like they're buildin' over pristine land to do this.

However, the project is reliant on the Renewable Energy Credits, and it'll be after the new administration comes in (if even then) before those get back up, so it'll probably take awhile longer than what they say it will to bring it online.On Ginormous solar plants to be built in California posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

Most were unnecessary...

How many production vehicles with the weight of an Escape get average 34 in the city?  NONE.  I get the utility of an Escape and the milage of a very small Japanese car.

But that's just the thing.

Most people DON"T need the utility of an Escape.  Most people who have SUVs don't even need the utility of an SUV.

They have an SUV as a form of status symbol, kinda a "beat the Jonse's from across the street" mentality.  90% of the people who have SUVs don't have a family large enough to warrant 6 or 8 passenger seats, nor do they on a regular basis, carry 'round enough baggage or cargo to warrant even half the trunk/cab space.

And most SUVs and truck drivers never even go off-road.

But they got one anyway, 'cause it's what everyone else had and it's what was "in" at the moment.

In other words, for the vast majority of people, it was an excess fad.

But since they could afford it, and gas was cheap, they really didn't concern themselves with excess...at least until it actually started to hit 'em in the wallets.

Now on to sooty/particulate/evaporative emissions.  I live in Los Angeles.  As a bonus, while I'm in traffic, my engine is completely turned off.  In fact, the engine doesnt run for 1/4 to 1/3 of the time I am driving.

While that's very good, it's pretty much the same as all hybrids (which is why it's very good), hybrids don't run on gas engines while stopped or at slow speeds.

Lets compare it to another hybrid SUV, not even a big one.  How about the Toyota Highlander Hybrid?  The Ford gets 10 more MPG and cost 10 grand less.

Once again, that's all very good, but unlike yourself, most people never really needed an SUV to begin with.  It was more of a fad than a necessesity for everyday work.

So really, now that gas is costly, it benefits the majority to buy somethin' with the best overall efficiency available, which would usually be a hybrid car.

Still, hybrid SUVs are better than regular ones, 'specially for the few (such as yourself) who actually need one.On Surprise first-quarter profit for Honda, unsurprising giant loss for Ford posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Nice, but...

...That guy's gonna break a leg, considerin' that pool isn't even waist-deep...  
                                    On What to do with your dumpster now that you recycle/compost everything posted 1 year, 4 months ago 2 Responses

No love needed...

Why no love?

Many cars get that much nowdays, and it's highway mileage is still terrible.

Compare that to say a Prius or even a Civic Hybrid, which gets slightly better than the Escape Hybrid in the city, but gets alot better mileage than the Escape on the freeway.

Plus, it's more expensive than most hybrids, typically more expensive than even a Prius (which gets much better gas mileage as a whole).

Still, better than most SUV's, I suppose...On Surprise first-quarter profit for Honda, unsurprising giant loss for Ford posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

I laugh at the irony...

...Ford and other American motor companies spent millions to fight new CAFE standards...and now, when the market demeands more fuel-efficient vehicles, they lose billions!

Ha-ha! :)On Surprise first-quarter profit for Honda, unsurprising giant loss for Ford posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Lessons in agriculture...

The important point to bear in mind is that no matter what food lifestyle choices you make something alive is going to die.

Well, there is fruitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

Basically a diet of fruits, nuts, berries, peppers, tomatoes, legumes, and other things that don't need to kill the plant durin' harvestin'.

To eat a balanced vegetarian diet requires, in most cases, importing material from a much wider area, increasing the environmental damage caused per pound of food used.

Actually, though the food may come from a wider area, it's physical footprint is much less than that of a omniviore diet, 'specially one with cows.

More than half of all land devoted to agriculture in America is devoted to cattle grazing, and of the croplands in America, close to half is devoted to growin' feed for said cattle.

If everyone were to hypothetically switch over to a vegetarian diet, even taking into account the increased amount of crops it would take to supplement meat in their diets, agriculture, as a whole, would still have a much smaller physical footprint than it does currently.

The footprint is reduced even more if urban and community gardens are used in tandem with large-scale operations.

Further, is it any more humane to kill something that you cannot hear or see the suffering of? In this regard a plant is much the same as a fish or a clam or many others species.

Technically, plants can't feel pain, they are physically incapable of it, though there is evidence to suggest that some plants are aware of their own existence.

I live by a native American philosophy in this regard and that means I respect the sacrifice that is made by the consumption of any living thing, be it plant, animal, or some other arbitrary human classification.

Native Americans traditionally hunted their own meat.  They didn't have large cattle operations, nor did they breed the animals and keep 'em confined for the specific purpose of consumption.

So how exactly are ya followin' a Native American philosophy if ya go to a store and buy meat that came from an animal that wasn't hunted, and was just raised for the sole purpose that it would be slaughtered later for consumption by humans?

For that matter, how, exactly, do ya show respect for the animal that made the sacrifice?On Animal rights group called out for repeatedly exploiting women posted 1 year, 4 months ago 38 Responses

Nice, but...

...how exactly will they enforce it?On EPA to ban pesticide carbofuran from food in U.S. posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Splish, splash, per capita bath...

Yes but reprocessing can provide us with fuel for thousands of years,

I'm all for reprocessin', but once again, very few of the existing plants, or even the proposed plants, utilize that technology.

The timespan of several thousand years grows increasingly smaller with the amount of nuclear fuel bein' used in conventional plants, which, once processed, cannot currently be reprocessed, even for use in plants that do use reprocessin'.

So the more plants that use traditional processin' (as most current and planned plants do), the less fuel left for reprocessin'.

Back to the paper example.  If ya take all the paper waste in the world, and say we can go for years without havin' to log trees for more paper by recyclin' the waste, that great!  But if ya burn most of that waste off, what's left to be recycled won't be very much, and won't last nearly as long.

Countries will continue to build coal because it is the cheapest hands-down, nuclear becomes a more attractive option with a price on CO2 emissions and becomes more attractive as this price rises.

Actually, given similar recent price increases in commodities such as steel and concrete, and the cost of buildin' wind towers in comparison to nuclear plants for equivalent power generation, the wind turbines are a more atrractive option economically, 'specvially given the more immediate returns and relatively quick construction period for a wind farm compared to a nuclear facility.

Nuclear plants are also typically larger than coal fired power plants, so what we should be interested in is water used per unit of energy produced.

But renewables use less water per capita than either nuclear or coal.On Kentucky to build new coal-to-liquids plant posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Well, no, actually...

Animal abuse can be stopped without trying to force everyone on the planet to become a vegetarian and the two issues can and should be considered entirely independently of each other

...Though this may be true for some, other people actually see the slaughtering of animals for food as an abuse, not just a personal food choice.

So, really, no, the two aren't that seperate.

Look at it this way...abuse (by virtual definition) is anything that would intentionally and knowingly harm (physically or mentally) a creature in a way that is unnatural.

Industrial slaughter of animals pretty much does that.  By killing it, you're harming it (obviously), and since it's intentional and done knowingly, it's abuse.

Another way to look at it...say an extremely advanced and much more "intelligent" race of beings suddenly appeared and decided to use humans as a food source...obviously, we'd consider it to be a form of abuse, even if the process was painless, because the "unnatural" death in and of itself would be considered abuse.

Incidentally, this is why most places outlaw murder and cannibalism amongst humans...it's considered abuse. On Animal rights group called out for repeatedly exploiting women posted 1 year, 4 months ago 38 Responses

Kind odd...

...they knew the trees were there, they (should've) known that the tress (bein' redwoods) would grow tall...why put solar panels in their shade?

Kinda reminds me of the people who plant palm trees down here around their power lines to make 'em look nice...but then ten tears later, the palms grow into the lines and ruin 'em the first storm that passes through.On Trees win in California solar panels vs. redwoods dispute posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

And it didn't even raise oil prices : (

On Oil spills into Mississippi River after tanker-barge collision posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

All that's needed...

So when someone tells me that nuclear power isn't a good tool for fighting climate change because electricity and transportation aren't linked, I'm typically puzzled.

No...the reason nuclear power isn't a good tool is because:

A) It takes an enormous amount of material (like concrete and steel) to actually construct a nuclear power plant...so much so that it will usually take a nuclear power plant at least 5 years to offset the greenhouse gasses emitted durin' it's own construction.

B) Nuclear fuel is a non-renewable fuel, which means sooner or later supplies are gonna dwindle and we'll haveta switch to renewables anyway.

C) Nuclear fuel still has to be mined from the ground...and as usual, mining typically leaves the landscape devastated.

D) Nuclear plants require vast amounts of water to operate...and water is becoming increasing scarce.

E) Let's not forget 'bout all the nasty 'lil waste byproducts.

is having a three word answer for every question:

Solar/Wind/Efficiency

That's 'cause that's all that's needed.

Maybe geothermal, wave, micro-hydro, and landfill/waste gas as well.On Kentucky to build new coal-to-liquids plant posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Truth is out there...

am skeptical that taking money from my children's education to enrich others is required to "save the planet".

Provide an exapmle where this has occured.

As far as I know, no money has been taken from any public education fund to help stop climate change on any large scale.

In fact, to my personal knowledge, no money has been taken from any public or governmental institution (other than environmental ones) with the specifc purpose of fightin' climate change (though some institutions have had additional money allocated to 'em to help inform, educate, discuss, research, and debate climate change...but no money was taken from other programs to supply these funds).

I have not seen quantified in any logical way how much humans contribute to climate change compared with all other factors.

Such information is readily available in a number of studies and peer-reviewed journals.  We'd be more than happy to provide ya with some links to some, if ya wish.On Physicists reaffirm that human-induced GHGs affect the atmosphere posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Need to do more research...

...the waters of NZ were used as nuclear testin' grounds by the French.  The Greenpeace incident not only stopped that, but it also had NZ forbid all nuclear-powered ships and submarines from docking in it's ports.  Australia, bound by ANZAC, followed suit.

Nuclear-free doesn't just refer to weapons.  It refers to virtually all nuclear technology.  It's also why Australia, despite havin' some of the world's largest nuclear fuel resources, doesn't have any nuclear power plants.

On another note, please explain what ya meant by "company that has cut it greenhouse gasses to nil".

Last I checked France was a country, not a company.  Also, considerin' it has several million fossil-fueled cars, not to mention planes, boats, and factories, I wouldn't call it's greenhouse emissions nil.

Do we haveta go over the definition of what a greenhouse gas is again?  Seriously, if you'd just do some like 3-grade research efforts, you'd know what this is all is by now.On Greenpeacers climb Eiffel Tower in anti-nuclear protest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

On the other hand...

...a more obese population has a larger ecological footprint in that they consume more(thus more industrial agriculture), and that what they consume is generally unhealthy (and thus more chemicals) and more likely to take cars than walk of bike...

...however, a more obese population also usually has  a more limited average lifespan.  In other words, they die sooner.  So though their immediate ecological impact is greater, I wonder how it compares to someone who has a smaller current impact, but ends up livin' a third or maybe even twice as long as the more overweight person, and thus consumes resources over a longer period?On The link between obesity and the environment posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses

There's also the fact...

...that the power lines leadin' from the wind farm to Dallas, Pickens also intends to use their right-of-way for a water pipeline to try and transport water from the dwindling aqufers of the South Plains by the billions of gallons.

...Still, better he invest it this way than in traditional oil extraction...or worse, decide to endorse coal.On His energy plan is half brilliant, half dumb posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Patriotism is a meaningless buzzword...

...it means absolute jack shitze.  The only people who use it are people who can justify their goals by no other means than mass hysteria and bandwagoning.

For example: Hitler states that people who don't report on the whereabouts of Jews in hidin' aren't patriotic.

And we wanna be patriotic, now don't we? ^rolls eyes^

Catch-22.  History assignes negative conotation to the word "traitor", when, at the same time, history applies negative conotations to the actions of most people who use "patriotic" scare tactics.
On Should we question the patriotism of deniers? posted 1 year, 4 months ago 17 Responses

Hypocrites...

...they're in favor of privatization of the rail lines, but when the DOTs begin to build to many privately built toll-roads, then all of a sudden they're worried 'bout the impact of privatization on transit.On McCain just not that into Amtrak posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses

Different strokes for different birds...

Out of all the factors (climate change, ocean pollution, overfishing, tourism, and development), I would be interested in knowing which one is the most damaging?

With at least 17 species of penguins inhabiting nearly every major landmass in the southern hemisphere, I imagine each one is effected in different ways.  In Australia, they deal with development and tourists.  In Galapagos, it's overfishing and pollution.  In Antartica, it's global warming.  In South America, it's pollution and tourism.

All face threats, but their wide range and unique combination of threats to seperate populations calls for a massive and fine-tuned conseravtion plan.On Penguin declines don't bode well for the rest of us posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Thanks!...

Tasermons Partner:
Get a keyboard protector. I have one and it works great. Just google "keyboard protector" and you will find tons.

Thanks!  I've seen those before-don't know why that didn't occur to me.

Then again, aren't most of those plastic?  Maybe I should just spend an hour and go at it with a toothpick...On Compressed air cans are contributing to ozone destruction posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Unanimous?...

With unanimous consent, the "Marine Pollution Prevention Act of 2008" is veto-proof!

Of course, the fact that consent was unanimous amongst the entire Senate leads me to wonder just how strong it really is...usually eco-bills get opposed by somebody, just on the fact their eco-bills alone.On A weekly roundup of greenish news from the Capitol posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

No preschoolers please...

just some simple random thoughts...  Doesn't oil like leak into the oceans naturally?

Not by millions of gallons, no.  Leaks from oil spills on offshore rigs are far geater than natural "leaks."

Don't volcanoes spew tons more junk into the air at every major eruption way past the entire output of the entire history of humans?

Not, at least, not usually.  Typically, an average city of more than 1 million people will spew out nearly 2 and a half time the amount of pollutants in a single day as a typical volcanic eruption.

The exception would be so-called mega-eruptions, such as Kracatoa.  But eruptions like that are short-lived, whereas our pollution is constant, and currently expanding and increasing.

We surpassed the levels of "pollution" from volcanoes quite awhile back, in the late 1800's, actually.

Have you ever seen the videos shot along the deep ocean ridges and all the junk the underwater volcano vents pump out?  There are critters down there who snack that up.

Obviously you're misinformed.  Those are hydrothermal vents.  that "junk" they spill out is just dissolved minerals from the Earth's crust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_smoker

This is just two cents worth so don't think it is supposed to be and end all point...

Sorry, but it isn't even worth two cents, please do some research before posting.

and while I am at it... Is there not methane and other hydro-carbons in space?  in clouds and/or on other planets, moons, comets, asteroids, etc. ? How many plants and dinosaurs died in space to produce that?  Hrmmmm...???

It's a balanced system.  C02, methane, and other pollutants and GHGs are needed to support life as we know it...but only at certain levels.  Too much in the wrong places and the system is thrown outta balance.

Also, you're assumption that the strict biblical interpretation of the universe is correct simply because there is certain materials on other worlds that are also found on Earth as a result of decayed living organsims is false.

The universe and it's materials made dinosaurs (not the other way around), when they died, the materials were returned to the Earth.  There is no material from the death of dinosaurs that wasn't already present in some other form.

And, since you've obviously done absolutely no reaserch, just because we call 'em "fossil fuels", that doesn't mean they actually came from fossils, or dinosaurs for that matter.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels

Please feel free to come back when you've graduated the third grade.On Backing up McCain, Bush calls for ending offshore drilling moratorium posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Only without other motives...

I think that the main use of national wind or solar farms (big ones in the desert, plains) would be to run the high-speed rail and freight lines -- that might simplify things

In an non-ultier motive world, yes.

But here, put two togethr could cause problems.  The Texas governor (Perry) wanted rail transit to connect the cities and new electric corridors to connect to the wind farms out west, so he recommended joinin' the two together...

...but to make it "economically feasible" and help it "appeal to everday Texans, investors, and commuters", he decided to add a ten-lane Mega-freeway half a mile wide in places, along with some oil and gas pipelines, have it criss-cross near every major city in the state (but not actually go into the populated areas-thus makin' the commuter rail plans a total farce), and call the whole thing the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Gotta be careful with that kinda stuff. On BLM contemplates two-year moratorium on solar power plant construction in the West posted 1 year, 5 months ago 68 Responses

Yes!

On Airlines must pay for emissions, E.U. says posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

But consider the alternative...

ENRON is LONG GONE, WHY is the LOOPHOLE STILL here DOUBLING GAS PRICES?  CLOSE THE ENRON LOOPHOLE NOW!

Would ya rather gas prices go down?

I'm in agreement with ya that it's a bad practice, and it has boosted some oil companies' profits by quite a bit...

...but right now, high gas prices are almost the only thing ensuring our GHG emissions don't grow at the same phenomenonal rate they've been growin' at, 'specially in the United States.On House approves two measures to address energy prices, third fails posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Very good!

On House approves two measures to address energy prices, third fails posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Uh huh...

...and if they were really as enthusiastic 'bout clean tech as jabailo claims, then why would they be fightin' this to begin with?

Probably 'cause it's mostly PR and they really don't want to invest in producin' such technology at a large scale unless they're required to.

Just look at the fight and lobbyin' efforts they put up in the fall and winter of last year to oppose the new national standards (even though they were lower than the California ones).

All the major automakers complained they would have trouble reaching those standards by 2020...the gas reaches $4 a gallon, and they all scramble to drop their trucks and SUVs and reach the standards by 2009 and 2010...not 2020.

I don't know whether to be glad they spent all that money to oppose the new standards, only to have consumer demand drive 'em to that point anyway, or to be sad that they essentially lied (though it was obvious) that couldn't meet those standards in the first place.On Auto industry loses suit to sink California vehicle emissions standards posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Actually...

Hitler didn't ally himself with corporate interests.

Though I agree that corporations and facism are not necessarily the same thing, it should be pointed out that, historically speaking, Hitler did indeed ally himself with a great many corporate interests.

As do nearly all world leaders, both "good" and "bad".On Groups make joint announcement in Cleveland posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

A little too strong...

Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:

I personally think instrumental is a bit too strong of a word.

Did eh vote in favor of these pieces?  Yes, but then again, so did many others.

He wasn't the tie-breaker, primary negotiator, or writer/introducer for most of 'em.On Groups make joint announcement in Cleveland posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

Yes, all thanks to DDT...

...I don't suppose the fact that tens of thousands of mosquito nets were given away by the the Sri Lanka government through an aid program had anything to do with it all...

...'specially considerin' several studies that sugest that some mosquito populations have already built up an immunity to DDT?On Icky disease afflicting Alaskan salmon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Tit-for-tat...

In Sri Lanka, at the height of DDT spraying, Malaria cases dropped to 19 for one year. NINTEEN.

Incidentally, the number of cancer, neural disorders, and stillborn rates skyrocketed.

Tit-for-tat.On Icky disease afflicting Alaskan salmon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Damn...I had wanted to go to that metting...

...but I had some work to do, and ended up watchin' the news clips instead.

Still, fanatstic news!On Houston gets real about rail posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Slow vs. quick...

The world has changed a lot over 4 billion years.

Yes, but it generally changed very slowly.  Even in the most catastrphic times in Earth past (short of orbital bombardments and supervolcanoes) the changes generally took centuries to have an effect that we are seein' in a few years time.On Icky disease afflicting Alaskan salmon posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Hold your applause...

...until the veto-proof majority gets the fat lady to sing.On Yet another climate bill introduced in the House; greens applaud posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Even if...

...he doesn't hand 'em over, and they do find him in contempt, wht make 'em think bushy won't just get him outta it?On Johnson, Dudley may be held in contempt of Congress by week's end posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Other way around...

Right...but in the process we produce more goods and services per person than any nation on Earth.

In case ya haven't noticed, a large reason why China emits so much pollution is because they now manufacture the bulk of our household goods and electronics.  

The produce more goods than we do...we just consume them.

I expected that China would beat us in emissions, but I must say even I'm surprised they beat us by 14%.

At that rate, they'll doom themselves right quickly.On China's carbon emissions highest in the world last year, study says posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Proof they don't care 'bout taxes...

...Republicans claim to block clean-energy technology subsidies because the cost will be handed to the consumer and will thus be a "tax".

Yet when it comes to coal, these particular congressmen seem to have no qualms 'bout havin' consumers pay their companies for research money.On Boucher and Upton introduce bipartisan legislation to invest in carbon sequestration technology posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Question...

Yes, because bills "like that" have come up in state government to build clean coal plants and they've been shot down by the Greens.

Question: Was there a provision in these "bills" that would've dismantled the older coal plants once the newer ones were online?

Or was it just a bill to allow new coal plants while still keeping the old ones operative?On The right comparison between Obama and McCain on climate/energy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

I don't think...

...this guy would make it.  He'd probably be too conservative for Obama, even if he was tryin' to "even out" his ticket with some military types.

...Then again, what the heck do I know 'bout politics?On Obama VP possibility heads establishment energy advocacy group posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Obvious...

Gee, would could've seen this comin'?...

Seriously, stop trying to pass it as it's own bill.  It won't pass that way, not this year.

Just attach it as an ammendment to a veto-proof bill already.On Senate Republicans block movement on two bills to spur renewable energy investment posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

'Bout time the McMansions took a hit...

On Energy prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Heh...

...wasn't it Murti's statements that, in part, actually caused the sudden spike at the end of last week?

He should do that sorta thing more often. ;)On High oil prices are our lot until demand is destroyed, but no peak posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Who's complaining?...

Also disqualified from complaining [about oil prices] are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling.

Considerin' that most of those people are environmentalists...I doubt they were complainin' 'bout high oil prices to begin with.On Drilling in ANWR still isn't the solution to high gas prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Jonas...

...it's either have a moderate disaster now, or an unheard of catastrophe or epic proportions later.

I know many people are short-sighted and don't like to think long-term, but if what they care 'bout is the lives and livehoods of people, then they must realize that the sooner the transition away from fossil fuels takes place, the more lives that will be saved in the long run.  And nothin' helps spur that transition like very high prices.On Five nations agree to think about ending oil subsidies posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses

I agree with archigeek...

...find out what they plan to do with it first.On NPS considers returning half of Badlands National Park to Oglala Sioux posted 1 year, 5 months ago 16 Responses

And I feel fine...

You guys really think the world is coming to an end, don't you?

sing-a-song: It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine!

Anyway, with any luck, yes the world as we know it will come to an end...and it's 'bout dang time, since the world as we knew it was on an unsustainable course to even greater disaster had this not happened when it did.
On U.N. report forecasts continued high food prices for the next decade posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Not really...

Yes, overpopulation is an issue. But when societies become affluent enough, population growth stops.

Several problems with this.  First, it usually slows down, not stops entirely (with some exceptions).

Secondly, when the population becomes affluent, they consume more resources, even more than a reasonably larger not-so-affluent population.

Compare consumption rates for basic good in America (300+ Million) with a less affluent country like India (1 Billion, 130+ Million).  

Even though India has nearly 4 time the population of the United States, the average American consumes many more resources and thus America as a whole consumes many more resources than India does.

Even if the world population were to level off tomorrow and stay virtually the same, if the existing population began to consume as much as Americans do, the planet would not be able to support the population.

Indeed, it would take nearly 3.5 other worlds just a rich in resources as Earth in order to sustain the human population at that rate of consumption.

So yes, overpopulation is bad...but a population of wastefulness is worse.On Vermont-sized area of Amazon may be protected posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

What other reports?...

What makes you think I did not read the DOI report, and that I should not consider other reports which may not agree with it or show a different situation elswhwere?

Because ya haven't cited anything from the report, seem to have no knowledge of certain statistics from the report, and I somewhat doubt you're even capable of reading a scientific report.

As for other reports which reflect a different situation...what other reports?  This is the most comprehensive and one of the most detailed scientific reports on polar bear populations ever made.  And it's also the most recent.On GM acknowledges that it lost the bet on big vehicles posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

A few questions...

In fact, every Clorox product goes through an environmental assessment by our Product Safety and Regulatory Compliance department prior to being marketed.

Just outta curiosity, is this environmental asessment required by law, or does Clorox do this voluntarily?  And are the results public?

Also, can the PSRC department (or has it ever) denied a product to be marketed because of negative environmental impact?

And also, what was the environmental assessment for the Clorox Bleach product line?On Sierra Club and Clorox celebrate their partnership posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

LEED already has a list...

...of all LEED certified projects.  It's on their website.On California launches database of green state buildings posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Is it just cows?...

...could they possibly shift over to other things, like say goats or chickens, which are less destructive and can still provide additional benefits, like milk and eggs, during their life-cycle?On Purdy lil Heifer posted 1 year, 5 months ago 41 Responses

If it's not included in House version...

...then does it really matter that the Senate passed it?On Budget resolution includes funds to clean up nuclear sites posted 1 year, 5 months ago 1 Response

Good call, but...

...many areas of the rainforest that're already supposed to be "preserved" status have been effected by illegal logging.

He'd do better to focus on that.On Vermont-sized area of Amazon may be protected posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

Well, there goes that idea...^sigh^

On House passes bill to green up schools posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Fad-ists

What makes you think this video will convince Sharpton's or Robertson's supporters that climate change is worthy of their urgent attention?

Because they're in it.

These people are fad-ists.  It's like when a pop-star endorses a new can of soda.  If the pop-star endorses it, that's all they'll drink, despite the taste or high cost, they'll still drink it.

It's the same thing with kid's meals.  If the Power Heroes on television say eat at the Orange Arches burger joint, then the kids go eat at the Orange Arches burger joint.

Yes, we would like 'em to be more informed and intelligent in their decision makin', but let's face it, they're not.

If they were, then they'd already know that this is a serious concern.
On An ad campaign on climate needs spokespeople who believe what they're saying posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Oil prices in America...

...are not determined by American supply and demand, they are determined by world-wide supply in demand.

Even if we did have enough to meet our needs 100% domestically, it wouldn't amtetr so long as the rest of the world was still facing a shortage.

Our oil prices would still go up, because it's an internationally-traded commodity.

The sooner these "energy security" guys realize this, the better.On Opening ANWR cuts gas prices $0.02 in 2025 posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Ha!

...If they think they'll be able to sell the Hummer brand, then they must really be graspin' at straws!

Like any other company would be funny enough to buy the Hummer brand at this tsage of the game!On GM acknowledges that it lost the bet on big vehicles posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Chesapeake Bay...

...the bill also, for the first time, sees that the the Chesapeake Bay cleanup project gets federal funds.

It also lowers the tax break per gallon on corn-based ethanol by several cents.

And it sets aside some (though not nearly enough) land for conservation.On The good, bad, and ugly in our national five-year agricultural plan posted 1 year, 5 months ago 1 Response

New vs. expansion...

Does anyone here care that we have gone 30-years without building a new refinery? It is impossible to continue growing as nation without a proportional increase in our resources

This is often cited by proponents of fossil fuels.

The problem is, it's very misleading.

By sayin' that we haven't built any new refineries, they give the impression that our refining capacity hasn't increased in 30 years.

But that's wrong.  There may not have been any new refineries, but plenty of the old ones have expanded and several have more than doubled in size in the past few years.

Refining capacity, overall, has increased greatly.On South Dakota vote is step toward first new U.S. oil refinery in decades posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

LOL topic title...

On U.S. emphasis on Canada's tar sands a bad idea, says report posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

How long?...

But it's a mighty comfortable limit.

Yeah, but for how long?  The more nuke plants get built, the quicker it gets used up.

Not to mention that many of the "easy: reserves are bein' depleted quite rapidly, and more than half are gone.  Yes, there are other reserves, but they are extremely hard to get to, and their mining would involve much more destructive practices than have been used thus far to get to the "easy" reserves.

Not to mention that the vast majority of the reserves are not in the United States, so in terms of people who think energy independence is important, you're just shiftin' the focus from foreign oil to foreign nuclear fuel.

Not to mention most other countries aren't exactly strict when it comes to mining laws concerning the environment, even when the material is nuclear fuel.On The latest sorties in the war over nuclear power posted 1 year, 6 months ago 43 Responses

While it's true that oil is up...

...oil is also generally traded in American dollars, and as teh dollar falls (as it has been) in relation to other currencies, that means that oil is cheaper to buy for foreign companies, so it softens the blow somewhat.

Also keep in mind that many countries have subsidized and nationalized oil programs.

Still, every bit helps, and America id by far the largest consumer, so even if the impacts are worst here, that is where they should be.On Airlines, cargo ships increasingly desperate due to rising fuel costs posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

For example...

Catastrophe and unknowingness is scary...but not admitting to them is more dangerous...

Catastrophe such as global warming, for example...^wink^
On Bizarre talking points of WaPo columnist Krauthammer posted 1 year, 6 months ago 18 Responses

Or maybe...

guess the questions to Dr Dessler, the author of the lead article, inviting comment, are too hard for him

Or maybe he just thinks you're too dumb to understand the answers.
On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 6 months ago 132 Responses

Yes, it's science that changes all the time...

...of course, we all know that religion never changes and has been proven correct in every way throughout history. ^wink^On Bizarre talking points of WaPo columnist Krauthammer posted 1 year, 6 months ago 18 Responses

Cats...

...while I agree with Wolverine that cats can be a problem if let out, just so long as the cat is spayed and stays indoors, it should be okay.

Really, the best way to get rid of rats is to get rid of what attracts them...unprotected food.

Put all food in rat-proof containers, cover up all openings where rats could in, clean up, keeps weeds to a minimum, that sorta stuff.On EPA gives manufacturers three years to adjust to new regulations designed to protect children posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Luckily...

...they're suffering heavily from high fuel costs.

Fisherman from several nations have been on strike recently, so it might give 'em a chance to recover.On E.U. will cut fishing quotas posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Long term trends...

Oil down 4 off it's high by 9.
Gold down 10 today, off more than 100 a recent high.

Somebody here doesn't know much 'bout commodity prices.

They rely on long-term trends, not daily ups and downs.

Hope ya don't play the stock market, jabailo. ;)
On U.N. report forecasts continued high food prices for the next decade posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

No zero...

...but he definitely ain't no hero!On Republicans for Environmental Protection explains McCain ranking (or lack thereof) posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Roadblock...

The last remaining roadblock to Grist Ecologists voting Republican has been removed!

How 'bout a viable and workable climate plan?

That's a pretty good roadblock.

Also, this would've been much less of a roadblock had they actually released it 4 years ago...when they were supposed to.On White House admits humans causing climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Do ya know what commodities are?...

Commodity prices are dropping like mosquitoes

Sure...if ya exclude, steel, gold, silver, aluminum, cement, copper and oil.On U.N. report forecasts continued high food prices for the next decade posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

One wonders...

...what'll happen if, elected as president, he has to deal with a Congress comprised mostly of Democrats?

If he got this bill then, would he sign it, or veto it?

...well, guess the only way to make sure is elect enough ecos to Congress to get a veto-proof majority.On McCain to skip another crucial climate vote posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Makes sense...

...less commute time, more likely to take mass transit, more likely to have a car (compared to a big truck), smaller living spaces, etc.On City residents emit less CO2, study says posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Brings back memories...

...wow, I haven't read Lathe of Heaven in years.  Talk 'bout a flashback.

The Dark Materials series talks some 'bout global climate change and climate refugees as well (though not so much due to GHGs as it is those trans-dimesional dust particles).On Early appearances of climate change in popular literature posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Yep...

Just an aside; your writing "style" is atrocious. Are you actually that inept?

Yep. ;)

Hey, gotta give me some credit, at least I can write, some people here apparently don't know how to...all they can do is copy and paste articles. ;)

Wonder if that means they can't figure out how to say it themselves?On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Illiterate, Brute?....

that would never have occurred to me.....I'm indebted with your advice TP

Obviously it didn't occur to you.  If it had, then ya wouldn't have gotten the two confused and used the 1900 warm period as an example.

Would you be kind enough to single-out the ice-core data for sea ice, because that is what we started off discussing, and it is unfair for you to link to mostly irrelevant material

I already told ya which ones...pay attention:

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/Contri_Series/full/

Look in directories 4 and 9.

Don't suppose it occurred to ya that it might be a good idea to actually wait until ya could read 'em before ya criticized?

Though your assertions 'bout the type and general thickness of ice cores are correct, which is why they used sea ice as a baseline in most of these findings.

In other words, they compared drilled samples from the sea ice, measured the atmospheric components in the air pockets, and then compared it to the known atmospheric data which had been measured in recent years in order to confirm that the data matched the records in the ice samples (since sea ice is more recent).

Using this as an effective means to make sure that ice core samples in general are accurate, they can now say with a good amount of certainty that ice core samples from other locations are likely to reflect the atmospheric conditions of the past times.

Brute, how many times we gotta tell ya-if you're gonna copy and paste somethin', read it first!  Or did they not teach ya how to read an entire article in school?

It is a matter of record that Paul Ehrlich has a consistent history of failed predic- tions;

Do ya even know what the book Silent Spring, (which your article refers to, but I doubt ya knew that since ya didn't read it), refers to?

It refers to DDT and other pesticides.  The book was a catalyst for the banning of DDT.  How was that a failed prediction?

In his 1969 article "Eco-Catastrophe!" Ehrlich predicted the following: the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, with U.S. population declining to 22.6 million by 1999 (!), and so on

Gee, I wonder why that didn't happen?

Could it possibly be because after the article was written (in 1969), we banned DDT, enacted the Clean Air Act and put restrictions on pesticides?

The reason the prediction was wrong was because we took measures to help alleviate the problems.

That was the purpose of the article to begin with...to incite action before the prediction came true.

Even so, the article actually cited these as worse-case scenarios (know what a scenario is, Brute?).  It might be helpful to actually read the article they criticize before you decide to agree with 'em.

Or perhaps you'd agree with Hitler's manifesto if they had simply said it was a good thing?  Without actually reading the manifesto?

Really, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING

Is this statement a myth? Certainly not. Our best estimate is that global average temperatures might increase by no more than a half a degree over the next hundred years as a result of greenhouse warming.

Temperatures already have risen more than 1 degree Celsius and are expected to increase bay at least 3 to 5 degrees Celsius before century's end.

Where did they get the idea that it would be only 1/2 a degree?

Obviously off the top of their heads, since they didn't cite sources.

Even without the benefit of modern technology, humanity has adjusted to much larger changes in the past millennia than we anticipate to happen in the next centuries.

Yes, but unfortunately, millions died durin' those adjustments (which they don't even cite specifically).

"Just a few decades ago, climatologists were concerned about global cooling. Scientists are obviously confused about the issue."

The first part of the statement is absolutely correct. And some scientists--like the Ehrlichs--are still confused.

Scientists were concerned about overpopulation, now they're concerned 'bout nuclear war wipin' out the population, so they're obviously confused 'bout the issue. ^rolls eyes^

Do ya even understand the concepts behind the global coolin' "concern"?  It's been covered on Grist a number of times, but I'll link ya to a quick summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Please READ YOUR ARTICLES BEFORE POSTING THEM.  Save yourself the embarrasement of looking like a person who is dumber than a Dog Patch. ;)  
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Both...

The predict both drought and flooding!?  Which is it??!?

Depends on the area.  Or did ya think the entire Southwest was just a plain, barren desert?On Climate change doing a number on U.S. West, says USDA report posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Futuristic...

On Deforestation posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

My only concern...

...is that he would use such a step to claim that America could act "responsibly" in marine conservation, by setting areas aside...and then say now that all the "sensitive" areas have been protected, there's no reason not to drill the rest of the non-protected oceanfloor.

Then again, for some reason, he does seem more passionate 'bout marine conservation than other types.  Maybe it's legit, who knows?On Bush may designate large marine reserves posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

More than 20%...

Wind is probably not going to make up a significant part of our energy future. Which is sad because this movie looks really good!

Really?  The Energy Department seems to think it could make up 20%...and that's without significant conservation efforts.  If we conserve enough, that percentage grows quite well above 20%.
On Wind energy ad wins Cannes award posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Already some...

So unless a viable energy storage technology becomes available,

There are several, dependin' on the type of solar technology.  One I know of uses thermal exchange from water/steam to create energy (with turbines, of course), and even at night or when the solar panels aren't in operation, the temeprature differential is still great enough that energy is produced in mass quantities.

I don't know if it qualifies as technically bein' "energy storage", so much as it is leftover potential energy which can run until new energy is produced, but the point is that it works.On Nevada Solar one is a better and smaller neighbor than a coal mine posted 1 year, 6 months ago 80 Responses

Recycling...

I certainly don't support coal but you are forgetting that all the materials for a solar farm come from somewhere. There is mining involved in the production of these materials.

True, but also remember that many of the base components for solar farms can be recycled and reused for other purposes (includin' newer solar farms), whereas the best you'll get from coal would be flyash for concrete (not really recycling).On Nevada Solar one is a better and smaller neighbor than a coal mine posted 1 year, 6 months ago 80 Responses

Selective data...

Hang in there. Neither Brute or Mr Wallaby  are scientifically qualified so don't let them bullshit you with long copied and pasted postings.

I know.  This isn't the only forum where I've debated with climate change skeptics before. * wink

But someone's gotta show 'em how their data, while not necessarily flawed, draws incorrect conclusions due to only "selective" data bein' shown.

Take *Black Wallaby's recent post for example, if he'd done more research, he'd know that just before the early 1900's warm period, there was a cool period caused by volcanic activity.  The warm period was a counter-balance effect.

Selective data.  Tells ya 'bout the temperature increase, but forgets to mention the cool period just before, or what caused it.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Also, the definition of "unusual"...

Try to understand what a natural cycle such as the NAO means

Ya do realize that if the phenomenon were parta the NAO (at least under typical circumstances), then they wouldn't have labeled it as "unusual", correct?

Also, you're aware that though the climate is influenced by NAO, that the NAO itself can be altered by man-made factors which would influence the climate, correct?

So, while it's good that ya know 'bout the North Atlantic oscillation, ya may wanna brush up on some simpler definitions such as "unusual".

Really now, if this was a regular-occuring phenomenon, then it would actually occur on a regular basis...but since ice levels haven't been this low/thin since...well...ever (at least in the past 800,000 years or so), that kinda leads one to think it just might not be parta the natural system, hmm?

 On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Population growth is not constant...

As you've postulated, polar bear populations are thriving post 1950 because of a hunting ban proving that "global warming" has had either no effect or a beneficial effect on their mortality rate.

Good, you've proven you can read a chart over of polar bear populations over a 50-year period.

Now, try to see if ya can read one over a ten year period, specifically, the last ten years...

...notice the huge decline in polar bear numbers?

Look at this as an analogy...(assumin' you're a person who has physically matured), you probably don't grow much as far as height from year to year anymore.  Yet, if we chart your height over the period of your lifetime and then come up with an average, it would appear as if you've been growin' at the same rate all this time (which would come out to several inches a year, probably).  But ya haven't.

The same is true of the polar bears.  Their population has stopped increasing and has actually started to decrease.  Likewise, even when their population was increasing as a whole, there were good years and bad years when their population rose at certain levels.

It wasn't constant.

By the way, where the hell did you attend school, Dog Patch?

Suppose that I did...what does that say when a graduate of Dog Patch knows more 'bout ecology and population growth than you do? ;)On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Just haveta keep fightin'...

...deafeat the coal plants one by one, that way, no matter the hurdles they try to throw at legislation, they'll still fail.On Coal industry launches full-scale attack against climate legislation posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Be careful Homer...

The solution you offer: More beer good. Beer comes from oil. Must. Save. Beer.

Be careful with Homer Simpson, knowin' him, he'll see this and then want to support increased drillin' when Mayor Quimby tells him it'll produce more oil...and thus more beer! ;)On Target your peak oil message to your audience posted 1 year, 6 months ago 24 Responses

100% compostable containers...

...went to one of my fave eateries the other day, only to see, much to my delight, that they had switched all of their old plastic cups, lids, and straws, to new ones labeled "100% compostable" and "made from corn products".  Very nice.On Recycled plastic products gain ground posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Native vs. adapted...

sugarcane in sugarcaneland

You're confusin' adapted with native.  For example, just 'cause sugarcane grows in Brazil, that doesn't mean we can slash the rainforest to grow sugarcane and still call it "native".  The same goes for the other plant types ya listed.On Biofuel-bound grasses are often invasive species posted 1 year, 6 months ago 8 Responses

A naked Lohan...

...gettin' a wax job on television commercials?  Yeah...that'll definetly get some attention! LOL!

I can see it now...millions of horny boys callin' for rainforest rescue!On Harrison Ford's chest wax as PSA posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

As much as I hate 'em...

...and I really don't like 'em, I gotta admit, it's not as much their fault as it is our society's.  If weren't a buncha SUV and Hummer enthusiasts who commute gas-guzzlers to and from suburbs everday with just one driver and no passengers, who also shun those who take mass transit as bein' poor or diabled, then we wouldn't have this problem.

Gas prices have gone up almost as much in Europe, and they've had gas well in excess of $5 a gallon for many years now, but ya don't hear how they complain that it'll cripple their economies...because it won't!On Big Oil tries to evade blame for high energy prices posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

More energy needed...

...but how to address the increased energy needed for sequestrian?  It's predicted to take up to 25% more energy to sequest the CO2 from coal, as opposed to non-sequestered.

So wouldn't we still be usin' more coal in the end?  And wouldn't that just increase strip minig and drive up the demand, and thus the price, for coal? On Wind power: a core climate solution posted 1 year, 6 months ago 36 Responses

Off-ramp...

...sorry, I've only read the first few pages so far...

...does it mention just how many additional credits will be auctioned should the "off-ramp" be imposed?  Also, does it give a minimum or maximum amount for bid of the auctioned credits, or is it in the same price restrictions as the other credits?

Will green groups (or rich greens like Gore) be able to but green credits in an attempt to force a shortage and thus increase conservation?  And how would the "off-ramp" option effect that?On Full text of the substitute amendment to Lieberman-Warner now available posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Interrelated...

Nice thought -- but did you read the OP?   It says the opposite...

Yes, and what I'm sayin' is that though intensity and preference are different, they are interrelated.
On Climate, as such, is unlikely to ever be a determinant of many votes posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

Here...

...browse through this section, jabailo.

http://www.grist.org/topic/green_living

There's at least several dozens articles in that section alone that refer to city size and housing footprints and related stuff.On It's shifting consumer demand that will drive increases in vehicle fuel efficiency posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

Someone needs to do some research...

Of the currently working CCS projects, none is used for enhanced oil or gas recovery.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.ht ...

Apparently, you're unaware of the EnCana project in the Weyburn Oil Field, or of smaller-scale tests in Kansas and Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery

Please also note in the above link, that the EIA estimates that if CCS were used to recover oil and gas on a large scale, it could result in 100 BILLION tons of additional CO2.

Also, you're aware that sequestering CO2 from a typical coal plant actually increases the energy needs of the plant by 25%, correct?  That ya actually need more coal to sequester the current coal?On Wind power: a core climate solution posted 1 year, 6 months ago 36 Responses

Just use more immigrants...maybe robots...

On Much depends on finding a new generation to put dinner on the table posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Less hurricanes, but greater intensity...

...the study concluded that the intensity of category 4 and 5 storms would be more severe under the predictions.

As for Tokyo, with 4 outta 10 residents not wantin' to sacrifice a comfortable lifestyle to prevent global warming...that's still less than half of the city's population.  Which means more than half would be willing to change.

Compare that to certain areas of America * cough-deepsouth-cough * where close to say 90% of the population doesn't care, that's a pretty damn impressive amount of people willing to change.On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Jonas...sequestered CO2 just leads to other CO2...

...Sequestered carbon would add much more CO2 and GHGs than wind does.

Nearly all carbon sequestrion projects and proposed projects have the sequestered carbon being used to help enhance oil and gas field production.

In other words, they use it to pump more fossil fuel from the ground.  But when the oil and gas is burned, it releases CO2 and other GHGs which can't be sequestered the way CO2 from coal can.

So you're essentially usin' the sequestered CO2 to increase the production of other sources of CO2.

Sources which may have been left in the ground otherwise.

So, what's the net gain?
On Wind power: a core climate solution posted 1 year, 6 months ago 36 Responses

0.2% diesel...

...I presume that doesn't include 18 wheelers and delivery trucks, since I would think that category (which is almost entirely diesel) makes up much more than .2% of America's total vehicle fleet.On It's shifting consumer demand that will drive increases in vehicle fuel efficiency posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses

Umm, no...

In fact, during the last 30 years we've slashed our energy needs mostly through 'efficiencies' like higher R valued insulation.

I think you'd be referin' to per capita energy use (and even then, I think per capita has increased thanks to SUVs, big screens, and McMansions).

But overall energy use has most definitely increased, 'specially when commercial and industry are included.

If they hadn't, then we wouldn't have needed to build any new power plants in the past 30 years.On ACEEE on the carbon-free energy source no one talks about posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Good start...

...but not quite enough.  We'll need more than a 66% reduction by 2050, but I guess they figure private efforts will take up the slack.

Much more money goes to helping compensate utilities and manufacturers than goes for renewables or mass transit (though all recieve billions), which is somewhat irksome, since I think the utilities need it less.

Still, compared to status quo, it's a big improvement.  On Sen. Boxer's summary of her Manager's Amendment to Lieberman-Warner posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Unthinkable...

...heck, I think 'bout it all the time!  Always brings smiles to my face!On Thinking the unthinkable posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Will there be...

...private messenger functions?

Not sayin' I want any, I'm just wonderin'...On Grist is cooking up a new site; what do you want to see in it? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

Not quite...

Wind, solar, nuclear and other renewables are not mentioned by him, because they are all carbon-positive, that is, they keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere over their lifecycle, while we should taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

How do wind and solar add CO2?  The only CO2 they produce is during construction, and they more than offset it during their lifetimes.

Also, since when in nuclear power considered renewable?

And also, as I've said before, since most current proposed CCS projects include usin' the sequestered carbon in oil and gas fields to increase production (which would then produce more CO2 from oil and gas which couldn't be sequestered), how does that take CO2 outta the system?

I do agree though that we need to take GHGs ouuta the system and aim much lower than 450ppm.

But I think massive restoration of forests, coral, and wetlands, and other ecosystems, along with redesign of cities and land uses would be more likely to have a major impact.On Wind power: a core climate solution posted 1 year, 6 months ago 36 Responses

Gotta fight 'em one-by-one...

...if they wanna make it easier for the coal plants, then we just haveta fight the proposed plants off one by one.

Not an easy feat, but we aren't just gonna lay over and let 'em win like this.On EPA plans to loosen air-quality rules near national parks posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Short-sighted...

Their theory of CO2 causing temperature rise, proven only in models

The relationship between rise in CO2 and temperature has been well established...just go into your local greenhouse to feel it yourself.

Why do ya think we call it greenhouse gas?

Yet, the other side of the coin is that Obama Democrats are not recognizing the very real danger of temperature rise caused by natural forces.

Such as?  What natural forces?  All other possible natural forces have been accounted for and it's been determined that they couldn't cause this much a rise in temperatures this quickly by themselves.

If ya have evidence to the contrary, and know that natural forces are solely at cause, please feel free to share with us (and maybe inform the United Nations while you're at it * rolls eyes )

If we end up lowering our CO2 production, mostly due to the injection of new technologies into the marketplace, and the temperatures continue to rise...what then?

*jabailo, I don't think ya understand the situation.  The temperature will continue to rise, it's a given.

Even if we literally eliminated all human-induced GHG production tomorrow, baned all cars, coal, oil and gas production, industrial agriculture, abandoned all suburbs and cities and went to live purely as foragers in the wild...

...even if we did all that, temperatures would continue to rise for at least the next 50 years.

GHGs, once in the atmosphere, take a very long time to stabilize, for the Earth to return the balance and amount back to it's "original" state.

We have a 50+ years' worth of buildup in the atmosphere.  And even if we abruptly stopped all human-GHG production, that amount would remain there until the Earth finally recovered.

However, that's not to say that we can't slow the rate of climate change down.  And if we're lucky, we may develop in such a way that not only do we stop human-GHG production, but that we actually take out the GHGs that we've already put into the atmosphere.

Look at it this way...ya have cancer.  A cancer which at this point is "incurable".  But that doesn't mean that ya just give up, sit on a hospital bed, decide to make the best of it, gouge yourself on comfort food, and prepare to die.  We have a way to slow down the growth rate of the cancer.  A way that could even drop it's spread down to zero.  And the slower it spreads, the more time we'll have to live, the more likely we'll be able to eventually get rid of it altogether.

Surely, the Democrat policy is the most shortsighted of all!

Weren't conservatives the ones in favor of segregation, slavery, loyalty to the throne, rights only to white male landowners, and also opposed to the teaching of evolution, and the Big Bang theory, intially opposed television, radio, non-classical/gospel music, blood tranfusions, and the belief that the Earth revolved around the sun?

Wasn't that a bit shortsighted?

Why do ya think the Democrates are called the progressive party? * rolls eyes *
On RNC 'Victory Chair' talks about McCain's climate agenda posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Listen carefully young grasshopper...

So you're admittng that increased CO2 has had no effect on polar bear mortality..............

I said polar bear populations increased over a 50 year timespan overall due to a ban in non-sustinance hunting.

Did you even read the report the DOI made for their listing?

More recently, polar bear populations have declined due to melting ice.

And they weren't back to their original numbers before sport hunting to begin with, even after a 50 year ban.

And, their recent decline has been much quicker and at much greater percentage than their initial recovery was.

In other words, it took 50 years, and they still weren't back at their original levels, and now that 50 years worth of work has almost been entirely undone just by the ice melt of the past few years.

In lame speak: big dive, very fast!On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Concerns...

One suggestion: Do not under-estimate her. She is a dynamite marketing-person, fearless, and with abundant energy. She is smart and a quick study.

That's what we're concerned 'bout.

These characteristics would be good if she were to support a responsible and well-founded climate change plan.

But if she enodrses one that isn't...then these attributes may work against us.

Then again...if they didn't work in her favor at HP...then they might not work in her favor in politics...On RNC 'Victory Chair' talks about McCain's climate agenda posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

New font buttons...

...what I would like though is buttons that we could use when we want to bold, italicize, or quote.

Makes it much easier than havin' to type the commands out every time.On Grist is cooking up a new site; what do you want to see in it? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

Funny...

...usually CEOs of the big tech companies (Yahoo, Google, Dell, etc.) lean towards the liberal side.

Guess there's exceptions to the rule, huh?On RNC 'Victory Chair' talks about McCain's climate agenda posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Mitigation of CO2...

...would help with nitrogen, to some extent, since some of the sources for human-related nitrogen releases are also responsible for C02 production.
On 'Science': nitrogen as important as carbon in climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Hypocrisy...

Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence,"

Since when have conservative Christians ever cared 'bout whether Biblical principals are beased on factual evidence?On Conservative Christians launch skeptical climate campaign posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

All your base are belong to us!...

It's clear to all that the "Greens" are a shakedown squad who use pseudoscience and obfuscation to try and get government subsidies.

Government subsidies on what?  The only thing I know of that we want anything close to subsidies for is renewables...and we want tax breaks for that, not subsidies.  Ya know, tax breaks, those things conservatives are always shoutin' for?

They are warping entire economies.

Example of an entire "warped" economy caused by greens?

They are hurting the poor and middle class.

How so?  Real-life examples please?

Greenomics is destroying the basic home and family and American way of life.

Yes, just like Soviet Russia, and gay rights, and racial desegregation, and the Teletubbies, and Elvis' infamous rock an/or roll devil worship music!  We will soon rule all!

All your base are belong to us!  ;)On McCain outlines priorities for first term; climate and energy make the cut posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Fake moon landing...

I'm sure they'll make money on cons who actually give a hoot what "Nasa Scientists" write...

Yes, 'cause we all know they're all really a buncha MIBs in disguise who really faked the moon landing just as a coverup to move funds into fighting drug wars in Columbia against Soviet-organized crime syndicates * rolls eyes

Yes, *jabailo, we're all aware that you're sooo much smarter than those fake NASA guys are ;)
On Human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Trolls, gotta love 'em!...

Seals and Bears are useless animals really

And the purpose of humans is...?  What are we useful for?On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Intelligent means they should be protected....

and intelligent.

If they are intelligent, wouldn't that only further the cause for their protection?

Or are ya against protection of intelligent creatures because ya believe that they can get themselves outta messes?

If so, why do ya advocate help for people in Africa?  They're intelligent, aren't they?  Shouldn't they be able to adapt to disasters like drought, genocide, famine, disease, climate change, etc.?

All on their own, without us?  So why intervene?

See the hypocrisy here?

Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the Grizzly

Hybridization with polar bears and grizzly bears is a fairly rare phenonmenon, in proportion to their overall populations.  So long as climate change wouldn't force massive hybridization upon their populations, why would that be of concern to us?

Also, ever hear of the concept of genetic diversity?
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Only several hundred million more to go....

...but we'll get there.  And hopefully that number will go faster if more people decide to take mass transit and move to denser cities where walk and bike is better.On Prius sales top 1 million posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Yes, but...

...Alaska is a very, very, large state.  With a very, very, long northern border.

Don't take it lightly just 'cause it's a single state.On Melting Arctic ice poses security threat, says Pentagon posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Significant delay, actually...

There was no delay: polar bears are now a threatened species.

Actually, there was significant delay.  Under federal law, listings for the ESA can only take 12 months, no longer.  This one took more than 15 months.

And the only reason they made it when it did, rather than delay further, was because the courts said they had to make a decision by May 15 or face consequences.
On McCain promotes eco-cred, while his advisers push for more Bush-style policies posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Yes, they're declining...

...and please take note that of the stable and increased populations, none are in the United States (if I'm readin' this correctly, that is).

And since the ESA is concerned with species populations in the United States, it still qualifies.

Also, if you compare the stable and increasing populations to the decreasing populations, the decreaseing populations still far outweigh any gains.

In other words, net loss.On Polar bear is endangered, but 'Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska' posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Then educate quickly please...

...the testing period is almost up, and it'll soon be time to put pencils away and face the grade.On Will McCain bring conservatives with him on climate? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Easy to take CO2 out...

...simply remodel the cities so they're denser, add numerous green efforts like vegetated roofs, then put a stop to slash-and-burn and reforest what's been lost, turn to sustainable forest harvest, then overhaul agricultural practices so that cattle don't overgraze the world, replant the lost wetlands and mangrove forests, revive the coral reef systems, and revive the native prairie systems, then try to scale back human-induced desertification, and refill the Red Sea, Aral Sea, and other large water bodies back to their original state...

...okay, so maybe it's not so easy * wink *.  

But it doesn't require a massive new investment in technology to help correct our mistakes and get the Earth to absorb a few additional billion tons of GHGs that it would be doin' naturally if it weren't for our mistakes.  these things can be mostly done with the tech we have now, just requires a little bit of initiative, is all.On Thinking beyond technology to mitigate climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Enforcement...

...one wonders how they'll check for it.  Are they gonna set up their own testing labs?

Or will they just rely on the inefficient government labs and if they find somethin', they'll take their word for it?On Wal-Mart tightens safety standards for toxics in toys posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Ecosystem and biosphere...

Do you mean the entire world ecosystem would collapse?

Once again, please look at the link I provided previously for ecosystem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

If it was the world, then it'd be called a biosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

Ya know, if you'd just do alittle research on Wiki or just on the internet in general, we wouldn't haveta take our time to inform ya on simple definitions which most informed people already know when they enter these forums...On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Same for humans...

Does a species adapted to living on sea ice have a purpose if there is no sea ice?

Does a species adapted to living on Earth have a purpose if it destroys the Earth?On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

At 97 to 1...

...it's actually veto-proof.On Dems and GOP agree to stop filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Wouldn't costs of offsets increase...

...with the dramatic upward shift in demand?

I mean, I know there are plenty of possible offset projects, both domestic and abroad, but we're talkin' some serious polluters here...like in the billions-of-tons-of-GHGs-range big.

One would think that'd fill up the available credits fairly quickly and costs for new credits would rise as demand outstripped supply (temporarily, at least).On What would the use of carbon offsets mean for McCain's climate policy? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

Majority is not 2/3...

Democrats have been in the majority for 2 years in Congress and have yet to do anything.

Why hasn't Hillary or Obama proposed (or enacted) anything?

Take any government classes recently?

It's hard to do somethin' when the prez will veto and ya don't have a 2/3 majority override.

Majority is one thing, 2/3 majority is quite another.

And I'm pretty sure that both Hillary and Obama signed onto several bills aimed at gettin' the renewables credits passed.

And I think they both signed the bill that would've made all utilities get a good portion of their energy from renewables by 2020.

But the prez threatened veto, and it was chiseled down to just new MPG standards.

Which he then used an excuse to deny Califonia and the other states waivers which would've allowed 'em to enact stricter MPG and emissions regulations of their own.

In short, blame the prez, not the Dems.On Enviros respond to McCain's new climate plan posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Cluster development and burbs...

Downtown seattle is far more anonymous and desolate than Kent which has festivals, fairs and other activities.

I'm thinkin' that has more to do with Seattle's sheer size compared to Kent.  Any large city, dense or burb based, is more likely to have a sense of anonymous than smaller cities.

Dense large cities still foster a better sense of community than large burb cities, though.

It will take Seattle at least 100 years to de-densify to a reasonable level that makes it compatible with Everett, Bellevue, Issaquah, Renton and Kent.

There's a difference between burb development and cluster development.

Burb development is almost entirely residential, with an occassional shopping center or entertainment complex.

Cluster developments are smaller, more dense, and are centered around areas of business as well as shopping and retail.  The cater to all resident's needs-work, live, and play.

Renton, kent, and the others are more akin to large towns or cluster developments than they are to burbs, even if some of the population still commutes to Seattle.On Congestion pricing might come in handy posted 1 year, 6 months ago 11 Responses

Feeding animals...

...good idea, but probably not feasible, due to health concerns.

May work with worms, maggots, and other decomposers, though.On Dissolving your corpse is the green way to go posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Yes, it's from wikipedia...

...as were the links in two other posts in this article.

Since ya obviously haven't been payin' attention the links, (otherwise you'd have known how important polar bears were to the ecosystem, and wouldn't have asked the question) I decided to be more upfront and post the information directly.

I see that it worked, and that you've have read the article!  ;)

Hopefully now you'll realize just how important polar bears are, and why this listing for the Endangered Species Act means so much.

Ain't it funny how that works out? ;)On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Yes, but people in the GOP...

...are also less likely to have graduated college, even less likely to have graduated with a degree in an arts, sciences, or humanities field, less likely to keep up with current or foreign events, less likely to give to charity, and are also less likely to believe in evolution or the Big Bang or that the Earth is several billion years old.

So it's natural that their intellectual horizons are bit more hazy in general than Democrats or Independents are. On Fewer Republicans saying earth is warming posted 1 year, 6 months ago 19 Responses

Many species rely on polar bears...

What is the purpose of the polar bear such that there is a point to staving off its decline?

Apparently, ya need to learn the definition of an ecosystem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

Every native living thing is an important part of its ecosystem (humans bein' a possible exception).  Other plants and animals have evolved alongside those creatures for thousnads, and in some cases, millions of years.  The stability of an ecosystem itself is determined by the coexistence of various plants and animals in ways such as feeding groups/webs, mutualism, parasitism, communalism, etc.  

To remove one species would interrupt certain parts of this web and may have a dramatic effect on the system as a whole.

With polar bears, they are the apex predators within their range. Several animal species, particularly arctic foxes and glaucous gulls, routinely scavenge polar bear kills.  The relationship between ringed seals and polar bears is so close that the abundance of ringed seals in some areas appears to regulate the density of polar bears, while polar bear predation in turn, regulates density and reproductive success of ringed seals.  The evolutionary pressure of polar bear predation on seals probably accounts for some significant differences between Arctic and Antarctic seals. Compared to the Antarctic, where there is no major surface predator, Arctic seals use more breathing holes per individual, appear more restless when hauled out on the ice, and rarely defecate on the ice.

The seals, foxes, gulls, and other species that interact directly with the polar bears also interact with a number of other species themselves.  If a dramatic change in the polar bear population occurs, it would filter throughout the ecosystem, changing it's very basic elements very quickly.

In this way, polar bears may even be considered a keystone species.
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Starts in June...

You also fail to note the continued absence of ANY hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

Don't suppose ya realized that hurricane season doesn't start until June 1st.
On Right wing doctors audio clips to distort Al Gore's comments about cyclone Nargis posted 1 year, 6 months ago 24 Responses

Polar bear cubs rely on seal meat...

The natural balance of nature will adjust to the new circumstances

Nature only adapts when change takes place at a natural rate.  In other words, very slowly.

The ice age and subsequent warm period didn't just happen over a few years.  The transition took thousands of years.

Nature may not adapt when change is sudden or cataclysmic.

If it did, then the dinosaurs would've survived the meteorite by instantly adaptin' to the climate change that followed.

Polar bears are smart and omnivorous.  They like seals but they eat other stuff too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Hunting_and_diet ...

Polar bears are the most carnivorous of the entire bear family.  Seal meat is especially important to cubs, since, along with mother's milk, it is all they eat.  Polar Bear cubs eat only seal meat, it is essential to their diet

If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.

That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered.  Endangered species get those sanctuaries.  They wouldn't get culled though.

If polar bears need to be culled because sea ice disappears, then that means their population has declined and will be limited.  That's what we wnat to avoid. We want to stop the population from declining.

How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?

Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change.  To help out those people, we need to limit it.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Average not peak...

1.5 GW solar plant that puts out 1.5 GW at noon on a clear day is better than a nuke plant that puts out 1.5 GW all the time, I don't think so.

I may be wrong 'bout this, but power plants are typically classified by their average power outputs, not maximum potential outputs, correct?

1.5 MW wouldn't be a peak, it would be an average.

I also guess ya haven't heard that certain types of solar plants can store power (or rather hot water that used to make power) so that it's available even at night.
On No more subsidies for nuclear power, McCain et al posted 1 year, 6 months ago 34 Responses

Different seal species...

Can we put the polar bears in Canada?, - so they can eat the seals.

The type of seals that polar bears eat are usually ringed and bearded seals, which are not the type hunted in Canada (usually fur seals) the seals have different habits and behaviors that may make 'em incompatible with polar bears.

Plus it's not known how the subtle differences in the seals' physical characteristics (both internal and external) would effect the polar bears if they were consumed. On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Yet another benefit...

...of the housing bubble burstOn Stressed by housing slump, developers sell land to conservationists posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

That's unsustainable, dummy...

(1) Not able to make a profit and folding

Under business practices, any economist can tell ya that to use resources at an unsustainable rate will never lead to profit over the long term, or over an indefinite period of time.On Eco-friendly outdoor-clothing company goes under posted 1 year, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Better for the long term...

But gas is getting so expensive so fast that it's hurting a lot of people.

If it didn't become expensive quickly, and rose in price gradually instead, then people would simply adjust to it and there wouldn't be any change in habits.

Likewise, if they stay the same as they are, then people will eventually adjust to it, and whatever changes they've made to their habits will eventually be undone.

The only way to bring about a paradigm shift in theis situation is for prices to rise very much and very rapidly.

Any hurt being brought on now would be increased a thousand fold if we were to continue with the ways things were before the price spikes.On Or how to prove you're even dumber than your opponents posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Lots more tech...

Hi, I belong to a grassroots movement and we think CCS presents one of the few technologies to save the planet.

Funny, last I checked there was also wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, landfill gas and conservation.

And they did it without the need to constantly strip mine valuable forested and grass land for a non-renewable resource.On Hawkins to industry: 'deal with it' posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Resemblance...

...to how Katrina was more powerful for landfall due to the destruction of wetlands around New Orleans.On Valuing environmental services saves lives posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Won't find 'em...

...If the Interior Dept. (or rather, the goons pullin' the Dept.'s strings) haven't found enough skeptics with all of their delays in the process, then I doubt they'll find one by May 15.

Then again, their idea of "scientist" could lead to some interestin' results...On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Turns against 'em...

...if this was "retribution" on behalf of "salmon lovers", then it's backfired.  Now not only will they not kill the sea lions, but they've also suspended all trappin' as well.

The (remaining) lions will stay at the dam.On Captured sea lions on Columbia River assassinated posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Well...

...Guam has less than 180,000 people.  So if it did have a say in the elections, they'd be assignin' electoral votes to a place with a population less than that of D.C.

And since so many of the residents are military personnel and can vote anyway, and the majority of the remaining population are actually foreigners with dual citizenship.  And since few people with dual citizenship vote in elections (since it may lead to sticky legal situations), there was really never much need to.

Notice how only slightly more than 5,000 of the island's nearly 180,000 people voted.  With such a low turnout (due to both legal and social issues), there really isn't much sense in designating an electoral vote for the island.On Obama wins Guam; nation forgets island even exists posted 1 year, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Graph with plateau?...

The precautionary principal can also result in demonstrable errors.  For instance, the banning of DDT may have saved a few Bald Eagles, but there is also an argument that it has cost hundreds of millions of HUMAN lives.

Watch your words.  It could've just as easily been said that DDT may have saved a few human lives, but cost billions of dollars in untold ecological devastation, and easily could've killed just as many humans.

In case ya haven't heard, there's strong evidence that DDT increases the risk of cancer in humans and that many mosquito populations had already developed immunity to it before the ban.  It was becomin' ineffective, as nearly as pesticides eventually do, when the pests develop strengthened immunity.

As for your graph, ya never did say whether they took land-use changes into acoount.

Also, I find it a might suspicious that that near-exponential climb would suddenly just bottom out a year after the graph ended.  

Temperature flucuations don't usually work like that.

Do ya have a graph which shows this plateau?On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Only problem with non-natives

Instead of allowing unnatural amounts of trees to suck up the diminishing groundwater

The only areas where this is a major problem are where the trees aren't native, or have grown outside their traditional ranges due to human interference...like mesquite tress in the southwest.

Last time I checked, forest fires didn't kill salmon in large numbers.

Do salmon even migrate upstream or reproduce durin' the traditional "heavy" fire season?On One of the West Coast's most iconic species feeling the heat posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

One billion metric tons...

The late 19th century increase in coal use compared to today's SUVs, etc.?  Gimme a break, TP.

If you'd look at the chart, you'd see the increase in CO2 from 1850 to 1900 was nearly 1 Billion Metric Tons per year.  Just from coal.

And even today, coal still releases more CO2 than the transportation sector does.

"Off the top of your head" is nice, but quantified information supported by hard data is a lot better.

Well, you claim that is wasn't caused by human-related GHGs, but if ya can't account for all the GHG emissions from that time period, then ya can't really claim such a thing and be certain that you're accurate.  I don't know what, if any effect the increase in methane production would've had, but unless you know, then ya can't claim for certain that it wasn't a factor.

Check it out yourself and you will see that IPCC does not show any major increases in other GHGs over these early periods.

I've checked, but I can't find the section were that's stated specifically.

Mind providin' a link please?  
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not year