Category Archives: environmentalism

Food That Is Genetically Modified – Yuck on a stick

Posted on by
Reply

OK, so I am the first one to admit that humans have tinkered with animal’s and plant’s genetics for a 100,000 years before we even knew what genes were. The most famous was the creation or the domestication of wolfs. If you feed them and they did not bite you they got to stay. If they bit you, you killed it and got another one. Made sense when a friendly wolf bred with another friendly wolf, the puppies would be more friendlier. Same with cattle. Breed a big cow with another bigger cow and you get bigger stronger cows. But this process many times took 100s of years and you had time to figure out whether it was safe or not. This is now happening in a single year’s time. There is no telling what we could be unleashing on ourselves. Worse yet, the big players in this area are some of the worst players on the planet. Monsanto, Dow, BSF. Companies known to be rapists of the planet.

http://www.good.is/post/feast-your-eyes-the-atlas-of-genetically-modified-crops1/

Feast Your Eyes: The Atlas of Genetically Modified Crops


Yesterday, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, a nonprofit organization funded in large part by the biotech industry, issued a new report on the status of genetically modified crops around the world.

The Economist has used ISAAA’s data to make a map showing where in the world GM crops are grown. As you can see, the United States is by far the leader in the field, with 165 million acres (66.8 million hectares) of GM crops under cultivation, an increase of nearly 7 million acres on 2009 levels.

Clive James, ISAAA’s director and founder, told the BBC that more than 15 million farmers grow GM crops, and that, “during 2010, the accumulated commercial biotech plantation exceeded one billion hectares [2.47 billion acres]— that’s an area larger than the U.S. or China,” and equivalent to 10 percent of the world’s arable land.

Meanwhile, The Economist pointed out an interesting trend:

Developing countries are planting GM crops at a more rapid rate than rich countries. Brazil has added some 10m hectares [24.7 million acres] since 2008 and overtook Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. India, too, increased its area by over 10 percent last year. The most popular crop is soya, while the most common modification is tolerance to herbicides.

With the European Union having just voted to allow animal feed imports containing up to 0.1 percent GM seeds (previously shipments found to contain any trace of non-approved biotech crops were turned away upon arrival at port), it does indeed seem—for better or for worse—as though GM crops are here to stay.

Chart via The Economist.

:}

Electric Car Kicks Regulat Car’s Butt – Instant torc a good thing

Posted on by
Reply

Harry Haynes sent this to me. Electric cars are so cool. Sorry I couldn’t post the video. You’ll have to go to the site to see it. It’s 10 minutes long but it is worth the time.

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1686

Electric Drag Racing

View Related Episode: Beeswax Ship, Electric Drag Racing, Native Bumblebees

Oregon Field Guide: Electric Drag Racing

Go out to the drag strip for some racing gone green – without a drop of gas.

Watch as John Wayland’s electric car, the White Zombie leaves high powered gas cars in the dust as Portland makes a home for the National Electric Drag Racing Association. John claims that his car is the world’s fastest accelerating street legal electric car. See this 1972 Datsun time and time again take advantage of the electric motor’s full torque in the first instant and continue to break world records.

First Broadcast: 2007
Producer: Vince Patton
Videographers: Greg Bond, Michael Bendixen
Editor: Greg Bond

Appeared in episode: Beeswax Ship, Electric Drag Racing, Native Bumblebees

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

“There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources,”

Posted on by
Reply

Key word here is nothing.

http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1055509_rearchers-100-percent-green-energy-possible-by-2050

Researchers: 100 Percent Green Energy Possible By 2050

John Voelcker February 16th, 2011 John Voelcker By John Voelcker Senior Editor February 16th, 2011

wind farmwind farm 

Enlarge Photo

We approach energy policy with care here, since GreenCarReports is largely about … well, cars.

But a recent article claims it could take just 40 years to convert the bulk of the world’s global energy usage from fossil fuels to renewable energy, primarily wind and solar power.

That’s not only vehicle fuel, but also electric-power generation, home heating, and the many other global activities that rely on the remarkably high energy density of the hydrocarbon molecules in coal, oil, and natural gas.

Beijing smogBeijing smog 

Enlarge Photo

Researchers from Stanford University and the University of California-Davis published their analysis in the journal Energy Policy.

Measuring costs vs benefits

The main challenges, say the authors, will be summoning the global will to make the conversion. “There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources,” said author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor, saying it is only a question of “whether we have the societal and political will.”

Another challenge: accurately accounting for both the costs (which are comparatively easy to tally and project) and the benefits (which are tougher).

Power lines by Flickr user achouroPower lines by Flickr user achouro 

Enlarge Photo

When looking at the cost of junking half a century’s worth of existing power plants, for example, how can electric utilities benefit from the tens of billions of dollars in public health costs that will be avoided in the future once those emissions are no longer being generated?

Those public-health benefits might include saving 2.5 to 3 million lives each year.

And then there’s the benefit of halting climate change, not to mention reductions in water pollution, and increased energy security as more of each nation’s energy is generated from within its own borders.

Step One: New generation from renewables

The authors assessed the costs, benefits, and materials requirements necessary to convert the bulk of the world’s energy usage to renewable sources.

Nissan lithium-ion battery pack plant under construction, Smyrna, Tennessee, Jan 2011Nissan lithium-ion battery pack plant under construction, Smyrna, Tennessee, Jan 2011 

Enlarge Photo

Just as it will do over the next few decades for cars, electricity will play an increasingly large role, with 90 percent from wind turbines and various forms of solar generation.

Hydroelectric and geothermal sources would each provide about 4 percent of the total, with another 2 percent from wave and tidal power.

Vehicles would run either on electricity provided by the power grid, or hydrogen stored under high pressure and converted to electricity in a fuel cell. Airplanes would be fueled with liquid hydrogen. But, crucially, the hydrogen would all be produced electrically, with the electricity coming from those same renewable sources: wind, sun, and water.

Geothermal Power Plant in IcelandGeothermal Power Plant in Iceland 

Enlarge Photo

The analysis shows that the land and raw materials needed won’t pose a problem. What will be needed is a much more robust electrical grid.

;}

Have a great weekend. More next week.

:}

True High Speed Rail – Could make the trip from Chicago to St. Louis in 2 hours

Posted on by
Reply

OK, so we spent the last 30 posts showing what the rightwing and the leftwing talking heads have been talking about. Now onto real news. This was forwarded to me by Andy Martin of Phat Andy’s Barbecue fame. Thanks for that man.

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/amtraks-high-speed-rail-vision-for-2040-new-york-to-washington-in-96-minutes/11144/

Amtrak’s high-speed rail vision for 2040: New York to Washington in 96 minutes

By Andrew Nusca | Sep 30, 2010 | 37 Comments

Amtrak on Tuesday unveiled its vision for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor by 2040, and it’s a doozy.

According to the train operator’s “A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor” report (.pdf), progress in the next 30 years could bring trips from New York City to Washington, D.C. in 96 minutes and trips from Boston to New York in just 84 minutes.

Amtrak is thinking “world class” rail, and the plan involves speeds of up to 220 miles per hour (about 354 kilometers per hour) that, all said and done, would slash existing commute times between the aforementioned cities in half.

But no plan is without a price tag, and Amtrak hangs that vision on a peg of $117.5 billion.

Here’s a statistical rundown of how that adds up on the ground:

  • Deadline: 2040.
  • Ridership by 2040: 18 million.
  • Capacity to expand beyond that: up to 80 million annually.
  • Frequency: one to four trains per hour in each direction, with additional trains for peak demand. Today: 42 per day. Tomorrow: 148.
  • Plan would generate an annual operating surplus (yes, you read that correctly) of about $900 million.
  • More than 40,000 full-time construction jobs each year for 25 years’ worth of building track, tunnels, bridges and stations.
  • More than 120,000 permanent jobs benefit from “improved economic productivity” along the corridor
  • $4.7 billion investment each year over 25 years, or $117.5 billion in total.

:}

Next up, cheaper more efficient solar pane. More tomorrow.

:}

Howard Dean And Energy Policy – This is an old piece

Posted on by
Reply

But it doesn’t matter because Howard is pretty left. He is actually kind of the beginning of the left in the world but in the US that is pretty leftwing. I am only going to put up so much of this interview because it is really long.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Howard Dean on Energy & Oil

Former VT Governor; Former Democratic Candidate for President

Raise CAFE standard from 27.5 mpg to 37.5, including SUVs

Q: Would you increase the required automobile fleet average of 27.5 mpg; and SUVs and pickups averaging 20.7 mpg?

A: I support an across-the-board corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 37.5 mpg by 2015. This would apply to all passenger vehicles, and would require a closing of the SUV loophole.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, “Fuel Efficiency” Jan 25, 2004

Global warming is most important enviro problem we face

Q: As Governor you signed a regional pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Should the nation adopt the same goals?

A: We should find a way to sign Kyoto. It is not perfect and we must include the developing nations, such as Brazil & China, and require them to reduce greenhouse gasses as well. But in the end global warming is the most important environmental problem we face. We can’t follow the head-in-the-sand view of the Bush administration on global warming. We have to deal with it.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

No new nuclear plants until waste disposal is safe

Q: Should we build more nuclear power plants?

A: We can not build any new nuclear power plants until we have a satisfactory way of disposing of the waste. At present, significant questions have been raised about the safety of Yucca Mountain, the disposal site in Nevada. Unless those safety questions are resolved Yucca cannot be opened and new plants must not be built.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

Help developing countries reduce greenhouse gases

Instead of rejecting the Kyoto agreement, renegotiate it so China and other developing countries have more time to reduce greenhouse gases or enlist the G-8 countries to help with the costs of environmental cleanup. Source: New America Foundation/Atlantic Monthly Public Policy Forum Jan 14, 2003

Our energy policy is one of our biggest security threats

One of our biggest security threats is our energy policy. The money which helped finance Osama bin Laden’s attacks was our money. Because of our dependence on Middle East oil, the US sent money to Saudi Arabia, which was used in part to fund the fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan and elsewhere which teach hatred of Christians, Jews and Americans. These schools have become fertile recruiting territory for Al Qaeda.

In Vermont, we have the highest rate of energy conservation in the US America needs an energy policy which stresses conservation and renewables, including wind, biomass, ethanol and solar. Not only is renewable energy good for the environment, it is a core pice of a smarter foreign policy.

Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, “On the Issues” Nov 30, 2002

Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.

Dean adopted the National Governors Association policy:

    Considering the evidence and the risks of both overreaction and underreaction, the Governors recommend that the federal government continue its climate research, including regional climate research, to improve scientific understanding of global climate change. The Governors also recommend taking steps that are cost-effective and offer other social and economic benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Governors support voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving other economic and environmental goals.
  • The Governors are committed to working in partnership with the federal government, businesses, environmental groups, and others to develop and implement voluntary programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in conjunction with conserving energy, protecting the environment, and strengthening the economy.
  • The Governors urge that those who have successfully achieved reductions of greenhouse emissions receive appropriate credit for their early actions. The Governors strongly encourage these kinds of voluntary efforts.
  • The Governors believe that federally required implementation of any treaty provisions, including those that mandate limits or reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, must not occur before the U.S. Senate ratifies an international agreement and Congress passes enabling legislation.
  • The Governors support continued federal funding for research and development technology in this area. They also believe it is essential to engage the private sector by fostering technology partnerships between industry and government. Public-private partnerships serve to achieve desired environmental goals, speed the introduction of new technologies to the marketplace, and meet consumer needs and product affordability goals, while avoiding market distortions and job losses.

Source: NGA policy NR-11, Global Climate Change Domestic Policy 00-NGA3 on Aug 15, 2000

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Hendrik Hertzberg And Energy Policy – Seems pretty neutral to me

Posted on by
Reply

What struck me the most about the posts and the material the right wing columnists produced was how consistently it was industry biased and really right wing sentiment. What is striking about the left wingers is how balanced they appear. Of course as far as I am concerned Ted Rall is the biggest lefty around in print and he made NEITHER list that I have been using. Never actually heard of this guy but then I don’t get out much.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/22/100322taco_talk_hertzberg

Some Nukes

by Hendrik Hertzberg March 22, 2010

(dot dot dot)

There has always been something intuitively disproportionate about nuclear power plants, which, like coal-fired ones, use steam turbines to generate electricity. Converting mass to energy by atomic fission in order to achieve temperatures normally found only on the surface of stars like the sun and then using that extraterrestrial heat to boil water—well, it smacks of (to borrow a term from the nuclear dark side) overkill. To be fair, boiling water by burning black rocks made of petrified vegetable matter from the age of the dinosaurs is a little strange, too. And nuclear power plants have one great advantage over the fossil-fuel kind: they do not emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is hastening the world toward climatic disruption and disaster.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address, after talking up innovations in battery technology and solar panels, said, “To create more of these clean-energy jobs we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” Last month, he backed that up with a federal loan guarantee of $8.3 billion to build two new reactors near Waynesboro, Georgia. And in his budget request for 2011 he has asked for $46 billion more. The applause

for his State of the Union line was louder on the Republican side of the aisle than on the Democratic, and his words and actions have prompted loud grumbling from environmental organizations. But global warming has punched some holes in the green wall. Such founding fathers of the environmental movement as Stewart Brand, the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, and Patrick Moore, an early stalwart of Greenpeace, now support nukes. James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a climate-change prophet, favors the so-called fourth-generation nuclear systems, which would substantially reduce the amount of nuclear waste. Hans Blix, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, is another supporter. So, within limits, are liberal senators like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. And so is President Obama.

“We were hopeful last year—he was saying all the right things,” Erich Pica, the president of Friends of the Earth, said after Obama’s loan-guarantee announcement. “But now he has become a full-blown nuclear-power proponent—a startling change over the past few months.” Actually, Obama has been a nuclear-power proponent ever since he was a state legislator, but in the context of an energy regime that underwrites conservation, promotes renewables like wind and solar, and, crucially, puts a price on carbon. Nuclear power plants are unbelievably expensive to build, but once they are up and running the electricity they generate is cheap to produce. In the United States, coal plants (there are six hundred of them, as against a hundred nuclear ones) get a kind of subsidy, too, and it’s huge: the right to dispose of their most dangerous waste by sending it up the chimney, free of charge.
:}

Please see the rest of article for a great summary of the past and a largely noncommital ending. More tomorrow.

:}

While We Are In The Midst Of A Meditation On Conservative Talking Heads

Posted on by
Reply

The Illinois Statehouse is in full swing. So I am going to take a break here and post this relatively import piece of information. PLEASE call your representatives.

https://www.ilenviro.org/news/

Taylorville and Leucadia Proposals Heard by the Illinois Senate
January 5, 2011

Tonight, two energy bills were voted on in the Illinois Senate.  There are no additional bills related to the environment expected to be heard this week.  Each of these bills previously passed the Illinois House.

Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485)

Tenaska’s Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485) has so far failed to pass the Senate following the Senate’s adjournment tonight.  Outgoing State Senator Deanna Demuzio presented the bill to the Senate.  Several senators expressed concerns about the increased rates to businesses.  Senator Kirk Dillard explained his concerns, “When you do the mathematical analysis of this project, it doesn’t make sense.”  He also expressed concern over what he called the “legal pledge that binds the state of Illinois to Tenaska for three decades” contained within the bill.

A few senators expressed concerns about the appearance of a subsidy to a particular business.  Senator Don Harmon expressed concerns over the way the bill “allocates the costs and risks over what is supposed to be a competitive market.”  Harmon, who stated that he would be voting for the bill, described it as a “prudent experiment on how to deal with coal in an environmentally responsible way.”  Many speaking for the bill referred to the facility as a very clean way to process coal.

When the question was called, the vote was 25 voting NO, 29 voting YES and 3 voting PRESENT.  The bill’s sponsor, Senator Demuzio, postponed consideration of the bill, which means that the bill can be called for a vote again.  This bill failed in the House at first, but the same mechanism was used to call the vote for a question again, when it passed.  The Illinois Sierra Club and several business groups opposed this legislation.

Leucadia Energy Facility

The Leucadia Energy Facility (SB3388) passed the Senate tonight and will move to the Governor’s desk for his signature.  Senator Trotter introduced the bill in the Senate.  Only one senator spoke about the bill in addition to the sponsor; Senator Risinger rose in support.  This bill passed the Senate with 36 voting YES, 13 voting NO, and 4 voting present.  View the votes here.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Energy Year In Review – Here they come

Posted on by
Reply

This one is a pretty good for being sort of an over view.

http://www.good.is/post/year-in-review-2010-the-year-in-clean-energy/

  • December 22, 2010 • 8:00 am PST

Year in Review 2010: The Year in Clean Energy

It was a record year for solar power, and the electric car began its comeback but, thanks to our increasingly desperate need for fossil fuels, 2010 also saw the largest accidental marine oil spill in history. We’re getting closer to workable clean energy, but will we get there quickly enough? And can we do it without Congress’s help?

With the economy hemorrhaging jobs, President Obama kicked off 2010 with the January announcement of $2.3 billion dollars in tax credits for companies building clean energy technology—everything ranging from turbine blades to batteries to solar panels.

It’s not all just solar panels. Off the coast of Reedsport, Oregon, a New Jersey-based company called Ocean Power Technologies began building a wave-power farm, using giant plungers that rise and fall with the waves. It isn’t operational yet, but the plan is for 10 of these generators to collectively power about 400 homes.

:}

For the reast of it please see the blog post itself. More tomorrow.

:}

It’s The Holidays – So let’s use energy efficient decorations

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.thegreenparent.com/2007/12/14/green-your-christmas-with-low-energy-holiday-lights/

Green Your Christmas with Low-Energy Holiday Lights

Whether you like lights that are white or multi-colored, make them green with LED lights that use 90% less energy and last much longer than traditional bulbs. LEDs don’t heat up like standard bulbs…so they stay cooler, are safer for kids, and pose less risk of fires. And if one bulb does break or burn out, the rest of the lights in the strand will keep glowing.

If you can’t find LED Christmas lights at your local store, check out Holiday LEDs or Forever Brights from Christmas Treasures to light up your holidays while going easy on the planet. To get even more green from your outdoor Christmas lights, try Solar Illuminations for solar-powered Christmas LEDs.

Photo credit: Graham Soult

:}

More tomorrow

:}

An Environmental Funny Moment – This mockumentary is pretty hilarious

Posted on by
Reply

I love the language here. But the site and the trailer are a little rocky. Or maybe it is my 5 year old computer. Who knows. But in all its glory here it is.

http://howtoboilafrog.com/

Make Friends / Make Fun / Make Trouble




:}

More tomorrow

:]