I know this is slow but I want this list to HAVE some Order to it. Most list publishers either claim they add order but in my estimation don’t or they say “in no uncertain order”. Well if the top 2 Blogs listed aren’t Tree Hugger and Grist Mill what is the point? Oh and I must say this:
Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.
This Top Ten List lists Tree Hugger as number one and Grist Mill number 8. I gotta say everyone lists the Peak Oil and lesser cousin Oil Drum sites as Environmental Sites…They are not…they are informative, I read them sometimes daily but they are not environmental in Nature.
So then there is Grist Mill:
and of course Ask Umbra is one of my favorite parts:
Q. Dear Umbra,
What is the greenest way to dispose of pet waste? Scoop and flush, or bag and throw in the trash?
A. Dearest Jenifer,
The greenest way to dispose of pet waste is to dispose of your pet, I suppose. No pet, no waste! But barring that revolutionary scheme, a few other options present themselves.
You have not said what kind of pet you have, but judging by your reference to scooping, I am going to assume it is a cat. The time-tested advice for felines is to bag and throw away the soiled litter, including poo. If you are on a municipal sewer line, you may be able to flush the feces, but you should check with your town; if you have a septic tank, it’s not advised. By the way, when you choose kitty litter, don’t buy a brand that contains clay—you might want to consult our product tester for the best non-clay options.
If you are scooping the waste of a dog or other animal, the same truth applies: bagging is best. It’s gross to think about all that pet waste rotting in landfills, but it’s a teeny bit less gross than imagining it seeping into our waterways or contaminating our gardens with its pathogens. (Some people compost pet waste, but it must be done very, very carefully—here are some tips.)
Of course, we hear occasionally about efforts to turn pet poop into power—I fur-vently hope “they” keep working on this idea, and I’m also very glad that is not my line of work.
Then there is Eco Geek. See I depend on real scientists to tell me real things so after Tree hugger and Grist Mill I gotta be blinded by Science.
|Written by Philip Proefrock on 30/11/09|
|Solar. Wind power. Wave power. Geothermal. Tidal power. If you’re a regular EcoGeek reader, you’re probably pretty familiar with the different major power generating alternatives to the burning of non-renewable fossil materials. But still, osmotic power generation is likely something you haven’t heard of before. Your first question is likely ‘How do you use osmosis to generate electricity?’Osmosis is a process whereby water with two different concentrations of solution (in this case, salt) is separated by a semi-permeable membrane. Fresh water is able to pass through the membrane to the salt water side, but salt water cannot cross back in the other direction. This causes an increase in pressure on the salt water side, and this pressure difference is used to run a turbine which produces electricity.|
Finally, before I go read Peak Oil, there is Real Climate. See again, Science and an (dot)Org. These things I trust
— rasmus @ 29 November 2009
We received a letter with the title ‘Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science‘ which may be of interest to the wider readership. The author, Peter Laut, is Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency. He has long been a critic of the hypothesis that solar activity dominates the global warming trend, and has been involved in a series of heated public debates in Denmark. Even though most of his arguments concern scientific issues, such as data handling, and arithmetic errors, he also has much to say about the way that the debate about climate change has been conducted. It’s worth noting that he sent us this letter before the “CRU email” controversy broke out, so his criticism of the IPCC for being too even handed, is ironic and timely.
Update – the link in the letter is now fixed. -rasmus
I know at 3 or 4 a day it is going to be a long way to 50 but it is worth it.