Comments elbarto has made

Oh, the humanity

The argument that evil latte sipping greenies are starving the worlds poor by denying them GMO's is completely bogus.

Who owns the genes? How many $billions have the Ag science corporations invested in developing and patenting the genes?

Does anyone seriously think that the "kind and benevolent" Ag corps are going to give their technology to poor starving people for nothing?

What a joke!

Think about this; Ag corp X splices in a gene for resistance to virus Y. Virus Y now only affects 1% of crop instead of 20%. Whoops, in a few planting generations, virus Y has now strengthened and again affects 20% of crop. Back to the drawing board for Ag corp. This is a viscious cycle that ensures continued dependence on Ag corp for version 1.X of crop seeds.

If anything, GMOs are going to feed less and less people simply because the technology is more expensive.

The world has enough food. Rich people waste enough food to feed those that don't have enough. That's the real problem.

Want to solve world hunger? - give those poor people some food - then teach them how to grow their own using sustainable permaculture. They can't afford the oil and chemical fertiliser for broad scale monocrops but they have human power.On Study: transgenic soy brings lower yields than conventional posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses

Welcome to manackermill

With an undying spray of unintelligible gibberish hammered out in a fervent 24-7 typefest from his/her mom's basement, manacker has hijacked this blog.

By sheer mind numbing wordmass this has become all about manacker.

Surely it is time to moderate? On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Fossil CO2 is "tagged"

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htmOn Student charges that textbook downplays climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 12 Responses

GreyFlcn - Peak oil = peak asphalt.

Roads are made from asphalt. No more oil = no more asphalt = no more roads = no more cars.

A very simplistic take on this issue, sure, but there's no denying that even maintaining roads in their current state requires a steady flow of asphalt made from oil.

Asphalt can be recycled but not indefinitely and usually needs to be blended with fresh asphalt.

There really is currently no alternative to asphalt within the current transport paradigm. Merely substituting fossil vehicles with EV's will not escape the need for road maintenance.

We could devote ever increasing expense to keeping our roads and cars paradigm or simply contract settlement and eliminate most car travel at much lower cost.

One is technically infeasible, the other politically infeasible.On Solving the climate problem will solve the peak oil problem, too posted 1 year, 8 months ago 37 Responses

Power density

It all comes down to energy flux. How much heat per square meter of surface per day flows up from the core compared to that coming from the sun?

We know the solar resource is 250W per square meter of total surface (1000W projected surface) but what is the geothermal heat flow from the core to the surface in W per square meter?

My guess is not very much because if the sun went out the Earth would freeze solid in no time.

W/meter squared might give some indication of which is a better resource solar or geothermal.

A study of heat transfer through a spherical shell might shed some light as to why the geothermal resource might not be that useful.

I could be wrong but think it's fools gold and another pipe dream diversion from what actually needs to be done to secure a clean and reliable energy system for civilisation for future millenia.

Egyptians build pyramids to last for millenia and they actually did. Why can't we look beyond the next few decades and put in place a paradigm that will get us well beyond the next energy crises.

Solar is the only energy source that can realistically provide enough energy for long enough without major planetary modification and creation of dangerous legacies like nuclear, geo, fossil etc all require.On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 8 months ago 36 Responses

Rock and earth are good insulators.

Well here is my understanding. Heat from the core of the Earth is slowly transferred upwards towards the surface. Because of the thickness of the crust and insulating properties of the rock the rate of transfer is low. If it was fast we'd by frying from all that core heat reaching the surface - but we don't. The crust insulates us and the heat reaching the surface is radiated to space in equilibrium with global surface energy balance.

The whole system is in balance, with the amount of heat being lost at the surface balanced by heat slowly flowing up from the core at a constant rate. If we inject water down into hot rocks to create steam, and effectively move heat from the rocks to the surface at a rate greater than the natural equilibrium the rocks will cool because the heat flowing from the core is constant and no longer sufficient to maintain the higher temperature because the heat flow to the surface has increased.

Every time you drill a geothermal well, the rocks will cool and steam production will drop and eventually cease. You then have to move to a new well and repeat. Eventually the old well will reheat when the natural heat balance is restored but I'm not sure how fast this occurs and whether is is practical to drill enough wells so that they can be rotated and whether there is in fact enough heat flow that can be practically exploited on a scale large enough for all of civilisations energy needs.

There are other geothermal resources that produce heat by decay of radioactive species rather than core heat - these are definitely finite.

Solar = ~1000W per projected square meter at the surface forever. I think geothermal power density is much lower and therefore less abundant and more difficult exploit than is immediately obvious.On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 8 months ago 36 Responses

Solid state heat storage

One of the more promising concepts for heat storage is solid mass heat storage.

Steam pipes are embedded in a large insulated mass of an inexpensive solid material like concrete.

Excess steam generated while the sun is shining heats the concrete to 300-400ºC. At night, or low insolation water or heat transfer oil is pumped through the concrete blocks to generate steam to run the turbines.

Concrete has a reasonably high volumetric heat capacity so it can store large amounts of energy in a relatively small space. There is some info here: concrete storage

Concerns about high pressure steam are unfounded. Most steam turbines run at 6000 kPa (880 psi) / 400ºC which means there are thousands of conventional power plants with 1000's of km of piping running under these conditions.On Cost of solar cells may be driven down dramatically posted 1 year, 8 months ago 36 Responses

CCS education

For a definitive summary of the technology:
IPCC Special Report

In the main, CCS is putting gas in the ground. A lot of gas. It will never, ever be viable on a useful scale here's why:

In summary, the sequestration of carbon dioxide produced every year by the burning of coal would require roughly the same volume of material to be moved as all of the earth moved by humans in same time period based on the following calculations:

http://gristmill.grist.org/comments/2007/11/5/0113/48638/ ...

Ok I'm quoting myself here but I stand by those numbers. Way way way way too much gas to deal with.On The blind alley of more coal posted 1 year, 8 months ago 19 Responses

Economists, our saviours!

So what do the mighty Economists propose to do about the looming crises of catastrophic global heating + peak oil = collapsing civilisation?

On easter island, the Economists (chiefs, wise men, whatever) proposed building ever bigger Moai. That really helped didn't it? You'd have to assume that some of the people on Easter Island were saying "hey maybe we should stop cutting down all these trees to build Moai because we need those tree for boat building etc." - they were probably run through with spears.

It seems like a simplistic argument but if you compare the basic elements of what happened on Easter Island and what is happening on Earth now how is it really any different? The Earth is a finite island, we keep cutting down trees and the only solution presented to us by the wise men and high priests is to increase the rate at which we cut down trees. (Tree cutting being an analogy for any irreversable depletion of resources).

I ask the economists; "How long can economic growth continue through the production of evermore widgets which require the finite resources of this planet?"On A few thoughts for environmentalists posted 1 year, 8 months ago 95 Responses

Water use in Brisbane, Australia

In my city, personal water use is capped at 140 litres per day. This is basically half the personal water consumption before water restrictions.

When the water restrictions came in to force people recognised the need to conserve water and dutifully complied. Life went on basically unchanged except for a few minor behavioral changes to conserve water eg they stopping compulsively watering lawns that didn't actually need to be watered.

The water restrictions spawned a new water harvesting industry and now many homes have water tanks to collect rainwater for clothes washing and toilet flushing, further conserving precious drinking water.

Why not cap energy use in a similar manner? The water restrictions have shown that the sky didn't fall in and that people can adapt very quickly with a minimum of pain and create new industries at the same time.On Lessons the United States can learn from the drought in Australia posted 1 year, 9 months ago 6 Responses

No need to char Pangolin?

Doesn't compost do the same thing? Take organic matter, livestock manure, lawn clippings, sugar cane slash, corn stalks whatever and spread it on the ground. Soil fauna like earthworms break it down further, worm poo becomes carbon in live soil microbes.

Dead soil becomes live again.

In any case, it's not difficult.
On Two solutions to global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 11 Responses

Relocalisation

What is stopping us from getting goats and sheep to "mow" the vast swathes of suburban lawns instead of noisy petrol powered lawnmowers. Milk and meat at your door step and they fertilize for free.

In bizarro world I would be an urban goat herder.On With wheat stocks at all-time lows, a fertilizer magnate utters the F-word posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

Dimmable CFLs are available

Someone posted that they are looking for dimmable CFLs. They are available here: http://www.environmentshop.com.au/Products.asp?CID=121&am ...
They are Australian 240V not US 110V so maybe not much good to most Gristers but they are available. I'm sure they could be found in the US.

At AUS $30 they are expensive but I bought 6 of them anyway. They work very well, but you may also need to replace your dimmer switches to a "low noise" type if you have old dimmer switches otherwise they may flicker when dimmed.

I can't tell the difference between the light from these CFLs and regular incandescents, except when fully dimmed the light has a slight pink tinge - which isn't actually unpleasant for mood lighting.

Using these lights and a number of other energy efficiency measures has enabled me to reduce my daily electricity use down to 3.9 kWh/day which is less than my grid connected solar panels put out on average.

I'd hazard a guess that in 5 years time dimmable CFLs will be the norm and go for $5 in your local supermarket.On Have you been naughty with your light bulbs? You need some good old command and control. posted 1 year, 9 months ago 33 Responses

Nuclear wasteland

Aerial pictures of worlds largest uranium mine.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200705/r140801_484774.jpg
http://www.uic.com.au/graphics/OlympicDamaerial.gif

Like most mines this place is a wasteland. It's hard to get a sense of the scale of it but if you can't see any cars in the picture it's because they're too small.  This mine is currently an underground operation, when it goes open cut, the pit will swallow this little site like a crumb.

The tailings dams containing low-level waste already stretch for miles and the whole operation  sucks several megalitres a day from precious aquifers.

Does anyone seriously think nuclear is a clean green future when this is what has to be done to the Earth to get the fuel? Mines like this are practically irreversible they leave a toxic scar that nature will take millenia to regenerate if ever.

Contrast the mine with wind turbines built on farmland:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200707/r159961_584192.jpg
Farming and power generation co-exist, the farmer get extra income for leasing his land and the turbines are ever taken down you'd never even know they were there.On Nuclear power and fossil fuels face water crises and other problems posted 1 year, 9 months ago 40 Responses

Slaughterhouse fun

"I walked into the slaughterhouse once again and this time three bullocks were waiting to die. I put on the white coat, hat and boots and waited in the office until the Meat Hygiene Inspector came in and said, 'They're ready for you now'.

"I followed him in and there was the first bullock waiting in the crush. His face was filled with panic and fear as the bar was pressed down hard across his neck. The stun operator walked round and put the gun to his head and there was a bang. The body which had been so full of life fell to the floor. It seemed to take far too long to shackle him up and hoist him round to the slaughterman.

"The other guys who worked there laughed and joked as the slaughterman plunged the knife in and blood splattered everywhere.

"I'll never forget the third bullock, he was terrified and he struggled to get out of the crush. He could see the other two bullocks hoisted up with blood gushing from their throats and he cried out in terror.

"The bar was repeatedly held down on his neck but there was no way he was giving up the right to his life without a fight. The guy with the gun put it to his head but the gun didn't seem to work right and although he fell to the floor he kicked and cried out. Then he moaned and I knew he had not been stunned properly.

"Blood was all over the floor from the other two bullocks and one was actually having his head cut off. The third bullock was eventually hoisted and his throat was cut and I was splattered with hot blood."

http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std1.htm

Factory meat production. Not only is it exceptionally cruel to the animals, but utterly degrading to the human beings who work in the system.

How many people would eat meat if they had to slaughter and butcher the animal themselves? It's all too easy to do by proxy.On In case you'd forgotten, industrial meat is a friggin' nightmare posted 1 year, 10 months ago 46 Responses

A couple more...

the economy. wholly owned subsidiary. of environment

the greenest product is none at allOn Here's your chance to be the Pollan of climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 94 Responses

Human nature wont help.

Good post.

I don't think even the most rampant deniers will argue that obesity is not bad for peoples health and significantly reduces quality and length of life.

It is clear that people won't change to save their own lives in the face of unequivocal evidence that their behaviour is leading them to an early death or at least ongoing misery of heart operations and realiance on drug cocktails to stay alive.

So how likely is that people will change to protect themselves (or little brown people in a country which they've never heard of) from something that is generally perceived to be uncertain and of little actual threat to their own personal wellbeing?On The parallels between accepting obesity and ignoring global warming posted 1 year, 10 months ago 71 Responses

Scary stuff

I wonder what it is with human nature that prevents the majority of people from even remotely considering the very real prospect of total anihilation?

Maybe such arguments will turn out to be unfounded doomsaying and somehow we'll collectively navigate a path through the coming crises. But to ignore a scenario that has a significant statistical probabilty is just bad risk management. On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

Climate change is a side issue.

Zacaroni I agree:

For arguments sake let's say climate change creates droughts and floods which cut global food production by 20% by 2050. Surely this will be a disaster as a majority of the world's people already find it difficult to get enough food and other essential resources?

Now lets say climate change doesn't happen and global food production is not impacted in 2050. By this time the world population will have increased 50% to 9 billion. That means current food production for 6 billion people now needs to be distributed to 9 billion people. This is a food availability decrease of 33%. Worse than climate change with population levelled at 6 billion.

Ok the numbers are probably rough, but my argument is that population growth alone will be worse than climate change.

I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that food production (and availabilty of other resources) will increase in proportion to population. Everything is in decline NOW just look at world grain stocks or world fisheries.

Population growth is an asteriod on course for Earth. Climate change will merely hasten the impact.  
On Is it only OK to talk about limiting population after it's too late? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 117 Responses

Some mechanisation still required.

I'm not a farmer either, I'm embarking on the urban experiment now. I already grow about half the herbs I use, and all the lettuce I can use. Also tomatoes, strawberries etc. Not much now but it's a start. It's the kind of thing that I think will slowly creep in and then become common place as in Cuba (minus the socialist oppression I hope!)

For urban agriculture to work my guess is that it would require between one in four and one in ten people to be farmers. Those people not farming would directly support the farmer to produce their food and perhaps devote a portion of their suburban land.

We might still need some broadscale ag with mechanisation for grain production. This could be done more or less the convential way, powering small tractors with fuel produced only from ag waste or maybe compressed air generated by wind power??

Moving fruit and veg production into suburban areas would then contract grain production to higher yeilding land clsoer to cities so that less fuel per tonne of grain would be required.

For those in high rise cities like NY there are the collective farms where you devote two weeks a year of your time to working on a farm that supports a few thousand people. You get your everyday urban life, but also return to nature once a year to remember where food comes from!

The sad thing is that all of this is possible will only a tiny dose of social collectivism and spending a slightly higher proportion of income on food. It may turn out that urbanites have become too lazy to bother averting total ecosystem failureOn What a fossil-fuel free agriculture might look like posted 1 year, 11 months ago 68 Responses

Cryptic comments GRLCowan...

I'm assuming you're alluding to some wild far off technology that doesn't currently exist and may never? Or maybe you mean clean coal is no coal? Please elaborate.

Right now, and for the forseeable future clean coal means sequestration. I've not seen other technologies seriously proposed or technically feasible on the required scale. Here's what some scientist guys say about it: http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/ ...

It is currently technologically possible and is being done on a very small scale. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, it's not. But it is real, not imaginary.

It's way easier and cheaper just to burn a lot less coal and start replacing it with renewables plus storage. This is available now, no tech miracle required, just a bit of effort and about the cost of a pack of smokes per person per day.On Why clean coal is so darn appealing posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

Kill all biofuel

Except that produced from waste.

Biofuels are far worse than coal, as others have posted they steal food from the mouths of the poor to put fuel in the tanks of the rich.

I've posted before that biofuel is 30-100 times LESS efficient (100 more likely) at converting sunlight into useful energy when compared to solar thermal power generation: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/23/10445/828/#17 ...

The best location for solar power generation is hot deserts where food doesn't grow, the best location for biofuels are also the best locations for food crops.

There is no doubt that little brown people will starve so fat rich white people can keep on taking 2 tonnes of metal with them EVERYWHERE THEY GO.

Biofuel is murder.On The neverending debate on corn ethanol continues posted 1 year, 11 months ago 20 Responses

3rd Warmest?

According to the latest NCDC report, the year to date jan-oct is the third warmest. This year is so far only 0.04 degC lower than the record of 2005.

Furthermore the Northern Hemisphere land and land/ocean temperatures were the hottest on record when comparing the jan-oct period.

The Southern Hemisphere was cooler due to La Nina I think. The next El Nino will probably see all records fall.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/oct/glo ...On 2007 likely to be sixth warmest year on record, say researchers posted 2 years ago 1 Response

Biofuels are stupid

I have read that photosynthesis is at best 6% efficient. That is, plants convert 6% of the suns energy incident on them into plant material.

Only a small fraction of the plant material is usable to make biofuel; Sugar for alcohols or oils from seeds etc to make biodiesel. So this probably drops the overall efficiency to 0.6% (I'm guessing).

Even if ethanol can be made from the entire plant structure (cellulosic ethanol) the pathetic 6% efficiency remains. It's probably much less factoring the conversion to ethanol...An overall efficiency 3% is probably optimistic.

Concentrating solar thermal / photovoltaic efficiency is approaching 30% conversion of incident solar radiation to electrical power. Storage in batteries and conversion to kinetic energy for electric vehicles is what, 50-60% efficient?

So here's the comparison for 100 units of solar radiation:

Concentrating solar power delivers 30 units of electricity, these 30 units then convert to 15 units of movement in an electric vehicle.

Photosynthesis delivers 6 units of energy stored in plant material. Converting usuable oil/sugar to biofuel delivers 0.6 units. Burning this biofuel in a 20% efficient internal combustion engine delivers a final 0.12 units of movement in a biofuel powered vehicle. At best cellulosic ethanol might delivers 0.6 units in a biofuel vehicle.

These calculations are pretty rough, can someone prove that making biofuel to move a vehicle from A to B is not incredibly stupid when compared to electricity generated from solar power?

How much more stupid does it sound when biofuel crops require a bunch of water and presumably must displace food production - concentrating solar power requires neither.

Biofuel from waste is great, but diverting farmland from food production to auto fuel production is a crime against humanity.On An alternative view on biofuels, from a Briton in Sudan posted 2 years ago 19 Responses

The existential question.

Replying to odograph-

I'm defining growth as the growth in consumption of everything: energy, water, trees, fish, cows, steel, corn, whatever.  

The world's population is increasing exponentially and each individual person is striving to achieve a first world standard of living which currently necessitates a profligate consumption of resources.  This drives consumption at an even greater rate than population increase.

For me, consumption of coal (and other fossils) is just one small part of the equation and I'm beginning to form the view that it receives disproportionate attention.

Put it this way; lets say we could wave a magic wand and overnight all of humanity was using renewable energy for all processes. What then? Business as usual? Continue strip mining the ocean for fish, strip mining the land for cattle grazing, strip mining the land for metals, on and on.

Replacing all fossil fuels with renewables without stopping (or more likely reversing) consumption of everything else might buy civilisation a few decades.

How likely is it that people will accept the necessary paradigm shift to reverse consumption and live in a manner that only takes things from the Earth at the rate they are replaced by nature?

Do we choose to live indefinitely, at least until the sun starts to die. Or do we burn out in a blaze of glory in a few centuries? In my opinion that question moots all these micro issues like coal etc.

I accept the argument that if we don't stop buring fossils soon we might have our growth sharply curbed for us. But transitioning to renewables is a much easier problem to solve than our propensity to build ever larger castles and monuments so we can bask in our own ingenuity.

I'm still hoping for a future in which human civilisation is almost indistinguishable from nature, yet possesses technology, ability and knowledge far beyond anything we might imagine today.On Jeremy Carl argues that coal will be with us for a long while posted 2 years ago 43 Responses

But there's always air cooling, they'll say

All steam generating (coal, nuke, gas) plants need cooling to condense the steam after it has passed through the turbines. Generally water is consumed in an evaporative cooling tower - the familiar tall concrete funnel you see attached to coal or nuke plants.

Cooling can easily be achieved without water - using air cooled heat exchangers.  There is no technical problem with that, it is proven technology.  

As a chemical engineer involved in the design & construction of large industrial plants I can tell you that clients and managers cringe at the mention of air cooling.

Air cooled heat exchangers are hugely expensive. If air cooling is the only option available it can sometimes put the capital cost of a project in doubt, especially for plants that need a lot of cooling (read steam generating power plant).

This is exactly why you don't see many large power plants with air cooling - it simply puts the economics of the project in doubt.

Heat can also be rejected from a power station into the sea or a river by circulating that water through heat exchangers and returning it to the source without consuming it by evaporation. This generally costs much more than evaporative cooling towers as it requires more expensive heat exchangers made from stainless steel etc. If capital cost doesn't kill this option, environmental regulations for how hot water can be returned to a river or bay probably will.

The great irony here is that the "free market" will generally kill a proposal for a new power station if it needs to be air cooled. Unless of course it gets subsidised by the government. Which is exactly what will happen to keep the coal barons happy.
 On Coal plants, like nuclear, suck up lots of water during operation posted 2 years ago 3 Responses

Clean Coal, A Dirty Lie

I've been running some rough numbers for my own interest to understand whether clean coal is a reality or not.

In summary, the sequestration of carbon dioxide produced every year by the burning of coal would require roughly the same volume of material to be moved as all of the earth moved by humans in same time period based on the following calculations:

Total world annual carbon dioxide production from from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels ammounted to 28.2 billion metric tonnes in 2005.  Of this, 40.3% or 11.4 billion metric tonnes (11,400 billion kilograms) was carbon dioxide production from the burning of coal. DATA SOURCE: http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/overview.html

The conditions under which carbon dioxide would be sequestered, either in ocean trenches, deep caverns, porous rock resevoirs etc would vary somewhat. However assuming it is liquified and stored at a temperature of 0ºC / 32F and a pressure of 200 atmospheres / 2940 psi it would have a density of 1050 kg/m3  (kilograms per cubic meter). This is slightly more dense than water at 1000 kg/m3.

Therefore, the volume of liquid carbon dioxide that would need to be buried every year is equal to (11,400 billion kg) ÷ (1050 kg/m3) = 10.9 billion m3. This is is 10.8 km3 (cubic kilometers).

To visualise, 10.8 km3 is a cube 2.2 km high x 2.2 km wide x 2.2 km deep. (1.4mi x 1.4mi x 1.4mi if you prefer miles).

So, for carbon capture and storage to work, an almost incomprehensible volume of material needs to be buried/pumped deep underground every year.

To put this in perspective:

• World annual coal production is about 5 billion metric tonnes (http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=1 ...). This equates to roughly 4 km3

• World annual total ore mined in all mining operations is 17 billion tonnes (http://www.mining-journal.com/html/Mining_Explained.html).

• World annual total earth moved (for mining and construction etc,etc) is estimated at 30-35 billion tonnes (http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/Contrib/html ...).

For me, this puts things in a perspective that much easier to visualise than economic models talking about $/t or $kW/h costs. When I look at the gargantuan scale of operation required, I think clean coal is a big lie from a dying industry. Renewables and efficiency improvement will beat it on cost and effort and carry far less risk - ie there's no guarantee that the CO2 stays buried for the length of time required even if it could be done.On 'Clean coal' proposals are getting canceled right and left posted 2 years ago 1 Response

Waste

Where will all you neo-con nuclear hugger nutbags put the waste from 1000 new nuclear plants? After 50+ years of nuclear industry there is still no safe and permanent way of disposing the waste. It just piles up in temporary repositories.

Of course one solution being trialled is to make bullets out of depleted uranium and pump it into Iraqis. But we all know how well that's going don't we?On Nuclear plants require lots of water in an increasingly dry world posted 2 years, 1 month ago 28 Responses

Amazon burns, too

The elephant in the room is the burning of the Amazon, although I'm not at all trivialising the CA fires...

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-amazon.html
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1021-amazon.htmlOn Global warming and the California wildfires posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses