Comments mdwalsh has made

They'll do it

I have no doubt this administration will get behind transit funding. With the number of Obaministration people coming from Chicago, many will be familiar with the funding needs of different types of transit (Chicago has bikeways, buses, regional rail and light rail) and will be easily convinced. Ad that Pelosi will have her californians barking to keep that project moving, and the head of the House Transit Committee is a Dem and just got Midwest "High-Speed" rail through, we will be golden.

This is a great article, one of the few that I've seen tie together energy, the economy, infrastructure and what not, though I think it could have said more about the social equity impacts of mass transit.On How investing in transit could save Obama's butt posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

Haber-Bosch

While yes, the HB process is pretty remarkable, especially for something that came from making a bomb. And you can keep throwing Nitrogen at soil and it will keep making stuff grow more..sort of. There are a few problems

1. Excessive plant growth may happen, but that does not mean the soil has all the micronutrients like vitamin A and Iron to make all those veggies and grains as good as they need to be.

2. As we grow all those crops, that over intensive, industrial system (it has to be industrial, or it defeats the purpose of fertilizing the crap out of it) degrades the physical structure of the soil, leading to massive erosion. Witness the decline in midwestern topsoil in the last century

3. All the nitrogen does not often get absorbed into the soil and usually runs into streams where it eventually becomes giant algae blooms and dead zones.

Grist covered this years ago

I just found (but now can't find) an article from November 2000 about a farmer who does exactly this. They calculate his GHG reduction garnered from his organic gardening plot.On A food/climate manifesto presents new visions for responding to climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 30 Responses

Apples and Coal

There is no way you can say trains are more environmentally detrimental than planes. Consider fuel consumption, fuel drilling, exhaust, bird kill, airports, equipment lifespan and reusability.

Trains do work best in dense areas like Europe, the thing is, the San Fran-LA corridor is of similar density. The population density of the state of California is about 90 ppl/sq km (which includes all the deserts and what not), the EU is 112, France, just the metropolitan areas, is 110. And California is growing a lot faster.

Sources:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=n&_ ...

http://esa.un.org/unpp/On KQED takes a look at California's high-speed rail ballot measure posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Great System

I agree that this is a great system and people against it are missing the big picture. Yes there will be some costs, financially and environmentally, but those are outweighed by the benefits. Additional tourists, shoppers, and everything else to the state, and less cars, planes and less efficient trains.

Not the mention, this is obviously rather preliminary, I see no reason in petitioning against the specifics until the general idea is accepted.

Another note: There was recently funding passed for high speed rail in the Midwest originating out of Chicago and connecting cities like Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cleveland and Detroit. While it will not go as fast, it will be much cheaper and impact a lot more people. I'd like to see more coverage on all rail projects in the US.On KQED takes a look at California's high-speed rail ballot measure posted 1 year, 1 month ago 13 Responses

exponential curve

Population growth has pretty much always been an exponential curve. Look up at what years we reached various billion person milestones and note that the time between gets shorter and shorter for a quick and easy reference to an exponential population growth.On United Nations calls climate change a matter of human rights posted 1 year, 9 months ago 10 Responses

oops

and here's his website on the matter:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/On Questions for Obama and Clinton from a Wisconsin farmer posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

woah

Those are pretty intense. I'd love to see more explanation, and an update, considering that was a year ago.On Wind-powered autonomous artificial life posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

Clinton free us from oil?

Clinton is the biggest recipient of oil money on the democratic side, and in general second only to Romney. I don't think she'll have too much interest in freeing us from one of her biggest contributers.

check out oilmoney.priceofoil.org
On The green take on Super-Duper Tuesday posted 1 year, 9 months ago 5 Responses

on vegetarianism....

Animals can process certain things from plants that we can't....Iron, some B Vitamins and certain fats among others. We need either meat or pills...you decide: Farms or PharmsOn In case you'd forgotten, industrial meat is a friggin' nightmare posted 1 year, 10 months ago 46 Responses

and...

while what Sam says is true in some cases:

Cattle are not born in a slaughterhouse, but are actually "raised" from a baby on pretty nice farms and ranches worth a few hundred, a yearling worth over a thousand.

It is also true that some calves are more or less born into a slaughter house. They are separated from mothers at birth, fed formula in a 'calving shed' that "trains" them to be alone, but in reality keeps them isolated from sunlight, and upsets them terribly as evidenced by the moaning. They are kept here more or less until they are old enough to eat grain, when they are sent to the CAFO

But yes, if a cow is raised and slaughtered right, there is no reason not to eat it!On In case you'd forgotten, industrial meat is a friggin' nightmare posted 1 year, 10 months ago 46 Responses

Monsantonopoly

I think this is clearly a monopoly. If one car company or one gas company or one phone company controlled 91% of the market, there would be a lot more noise. However it seems that Monsanto has learned from those that came before them and have done a much better job hiding this.

Because there is no proof that GM crops are bad for us physically, the FDA has no right to label GM products. Even if they did, the genetic modification is actually part of the pesticide, and thereby domain of the EPA. But since GM crops are foods, the EPA can't do anything. Furthermore, by consolidating farms and pushing the use of markets of scale to get farmers to plant commodity crops, they've driven a greater divide between the consumer and producer.

I think the only way out is to call for more information. Push for producers to label products as GMO free and for the government to allow them to do it, and support farmers who use non-GMO seed locally, and even go so far as to support them just for using GMO seed that's NOT Monsanto.On Monsanto's latest court triumph cloaks massive market power posted 1 year, 10 months ago 18 Responses