But since I picked on St. John’s yesterday today we bring you the Rail Road Companies. In particular the community investing and protecting Union Pacific.
:}
I posted page one here. You can call or email them if you want the whole thing. If you click on the image it will get a little bigger. My choices for posting were not great. Reeeal Big so that only part of it fit on the page or mid range which looks like the above.
:}
It’s jam band friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ciiCyxOJA&playnext_from=TL&videos=Oix0MvcQ62o&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-2-HM
He was too busy buying judges and worse yet funding Climate change deniers and Cap and Trade deniers. And I am not the only one to think so:
http://www.grist.org/article/don-blankenship-seventh-scariest-person-in-america/
Don Blankenship: Seventh scariest person in America
24 Oct 2006 4:40 PM
The venerable print magazine Old Trout was recently relaunched with a splashy issue on “The Thirteen Scariest Americans.” I was asked to write up the scariest American from an environmental point of view.
The choice was not difficult. The scariest polluter in the U.S. is Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy. The guy is evil, and I don’t use that word lightly.
The issue is out now. (Look for it on a newsstand near you!) The folks at Old Trout have given me permission to publish an expanded version of the piece after a suitable period of exclusivity. So watch for that at the beginning of December.
In the meantime, check out three things.
First, there’s this longish New York Times piece on Blankenship from Sunday. In the usual style of mainstream reportage, it is studiously neutral in tone, woefully downplaying the environmental destruction Massey does and the thuggish tactics Blankenship has imposed. But you can get a pretty accurate general picture of the guy.
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHNZVrxEts&feature=related )
:}
This is actually a repost:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/
The Coal Baron
Don Blankenship
CEO, Massey Energy
In an age when most CEOs are canny enough to at least pay lip service to the realities of climate change, Blankenship stands apart as corporate America’s most unabashed denier. Global warming, he insists, is nothing but “a hoax and a Ponzi scheme.” His fortune depends on such lies: Massey Energy, the nation’s fourth-largest coal-mining operation, unearths more than 40 million tons of the fossil fuel each year — often by blowing the tops off of Appalachian mountains.
The country’s highest-paid coal executive, Blankenship is a villain ripped straight from the comic books: a jowly, mustache-sporting, union-busting coal baron who uses his fortune to bend politics to his will. He recently financed a $3.5 million campaign to oust a state Supreme Court justice who frequently ruled against his company, and he hung out on the French Riviera with another judge who was weighing an appeal by Massey. “Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office,” Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia once observed. “He would be twice as accountable and half as feared.”
On the national level, Blankenship enjoys a position of influence on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has led the fight to kill climate legislation. He enjoys inveighing against the “greeniacs” — including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Al Gore — who are “taking over the world.” And he has even taken to tweeting about climate change: “We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling.”
In more unguarded moments, however, Blankenship confesses that his over-the-top rhetoric is strategic. “If it weren’t for guys like me,” he says, “the middle would be further to the left.” He also admits that his efforts to block climate legislation are ultimately self-serving: “It would probably cut our business in half”.
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsS811o21-k&feature=related )
:}
yah that kind of guy…
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3nCI_9uQfI&feature=related )
:}
The medical and healthcare industries use energy like there was no tomorrow. I estimate that the US could save at least 20% on its healthcare bills. For those of you in small towns…how much do you waste on driving to your doctor? Why don’t the hospitals put a telecommunications computer in your city or town hall? That way you can call in, get an appointment, walk down to City Hall and talk to your doctor. Even show him where you hurt. To say the medical community is stodgy is wrong…it is too smart for its own britches.
By Gina Pugliese and Nick DeDominicis
| QUICK TAKE>>> |
| Hospitals are behind other industries in employing energy conservation initiatives, including the use of renewable energy sources. But times are changing as they realize that wasted energy drains their bottom lines and that they have a responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint for the health of the environment and surrounding communities. Energy-saving initiatives require multidepartmental collaboration within a hospital; and materials managers need to ensure they are a part of that because their expertise can make a difference. |
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), every dollar a not-for-profit health care organization saves on energy is equivalent to generating $20 in new revenue for hospitals or $10 for medical offices. So why aren’t all hospitals jumping into energy conservation with both feet? There are many reasons. But this is certain: Most hospitals recognize that energy conservation is a priority and are gradually realizing the benefits, both to their bottom line and the environment.
On impact
Energy issues have an impact on virtually every aspect of health care. Demands for energy and the costs for providing it, are escalating rapidly. And those costs are not confined to higher utility, transportation and supply bills, but also the gradual destruction of the environment. Our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels has led to a documented rise in global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, as well as potentially negative health consequences for patients and workers.
Demand for energy is soaring across all sectors of the American economy. In fact, a recent Department of Energy survey of 20 major companies concluded that global demand for energy resources will rise dramatically—nearly 60 percent—throughout the next 25 years.
Senior executives from 20 major companies attending a 2007 workshop hosted by the EPA and Global Business Network estimated that electricity demand in the United States alone will grow by at least 40 percent throughout the next 25 years, requiring at least 300 power plants to be built over that time. Such demands have led to an unprecedented rise in energy costs, which have surged dramatically and put a significant financial strain on hospitals. In some areas of the United States, energy costs have grown by more than 60 percent in the past few years.
The Energy Information Administration’s data show that the health care industry spends an estimated $7.4 billion on energy ($5.3 billion for inpatient and $2.1 billion for outpatient facilities). More than 90 percent of hospitals surveyed recently by Healthcare Financial Management magazine reported higher energy costs over the previous year, and more than half cited double-digit increases.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions result from our nation’s reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy—fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas—that accelerate global warming and climate change; and there is much debate about how to curb such trends. GHG emissions, which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, also are increasingly linked to a host of serious public health consequences such as depletion of our planet’s fresh water supply and respiratory ailments.
Conservation now
Health care is a veritable energy hog. Whether from heating and cooling air and water, lighting spaces or transporting goods and services, the industry is heavily reliant on energy from mostly conventional nonrenewable sources.
According to the EPA, inpatient health care is the second most energy intensive industry in the United States (second only to the food service industry), gobbling up more than twice as much energy per square foot as nonhealth care office buildings. Buildings alone are responsible for almost half of the energy consumed in the United States and 48 percent of all GHG emissions. Hospitals alone use 836 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) of energy annually, have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity and CO2 emissions of commercial office buildings and are consistently within the top 10 water users in their communities.
Second, the calls for change are based on economic survival. Energy costs are soaring in the health care industry. A recent Department of Energy report found that rising energy prices and hospitals’ increasing energy demands have escalated costs so much that hospitals’ energy bills consume up to 3 percent of their total operating budgets, and up to at least 15 percent of their annual profits. Such phenomena are exacerbated by the added cost of running outdated and energy inefficient building systems.
Third, calls for energy conservation in health care are becoming louder because of hospitals’ ethical duty to protect public health. Many observers believe that the health care industry contributes disproportionately to the detrimental public health consequences of climate change. To keep true to its mandate—first, do no harm—hospitals today increasingly are turning their attention to change practices that can potentially jeopardize patient and worker safety. Increasing public concerns about climate change and its potential health, economic and security consequences are helping to shape the industry’s attitude toward climate change.
:}
dot dot dot…as they say…the headlines say it all:
:}
Behind the times
Although hospitals lag behind other industries in implementing energy-efficient strategies, there are numerous national initiatives focusing on health care, including a two-year-old initiative called E2C (Energy Efficient Challenge) that was launched by the American Society for Healthcare Engineering (ASHE) to support the goals of EPA’s Energy Star Challenge Program, says Dale Woodin, ASHE executive director. Woodin explains that this lag is often due to the lack of available capital, expertise and resources, and a need for greater awareness and support from senior health care leaders.
Health care companies in general also spend a smaller portion of their total expenses on energy, meaning fewer dollars are available to make far-reaching improvements. Rising energy costs are squeezing operating margins and diverting money needed for critical health care quality and safety improvements.
In essence, the primary driver is saving money. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, 67 percent of health care CEOs list financial challenges as their No. 1 concern. However, operating costs and competition for investment and capital improvement funds often restrict available funding for energy improvements.
In addition, alternative energy sources have traditionally been scarce and expensive. For example, only 7 percent of the entire U.S. energy consumption is from renewable energy sources, including biofuels such as ethanol, solar, hydroelectric and wind power.
The health care industry is less open than other industries to the use of renewable energy sources, and few health care organizations have publicly stated carbon reduction goals.
A recent Johnson Controls survey of various industries found that only 38 percent of health care organizations had either invested in or were exploring renewable technologies, compared with 68 percent across other industries.
Catching up
Recently, the health care sector has begun to transform its core practices in response to the scientific confirmation of the link between climate change and health. Health care organizations are placing a growing importance on initiatives such as energy management, and while they are less likely than other industries to achieve green certification, they are more likely to implement green features without pursuing formal certification.
:}
Physician heal thyself.
This article is about a year old and it makes points that have been made before, such as:
1. The medical field is not prepared for Global Warming. Our Healthcare system world wide will not be able to cope with the shift in and increase in what are largely thought of as tropical diseases today.
2. Medical Communty’s contribute to Global Warming through inefficiencies.
They also make the point that whether you believe in Peak Oil or not, Healthcare is addicted to Oil.
3. The pharmaceutical industry’s dependence on Oil would cause it to collapse if oil supplies became restricted or suffered a huge price increase.
4. Hospitals are dependent on electricity (coal) for their medical practices and have very little flexibility built into their practice. eg. No xrays, then what?
But the most telling part for me is the following.
:}
http://www.greens.org/s-r/45/45-05.html
Medicine at the Crossroads of Energy
and Global Warming
by Dan Bednarz, Ph.D., and Kristin Bradford, M.D., M.P.H.
The difficult thing now is there’s no [longer any] low-hanging fruit. — Roger Elliott, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Chippewa Falls, WI, on efforts to reduce hospital energy costs.
[A]ny field … should be judged by the degree to which it understands, anticipates, and takes action in regard to changes in society. — Bernard Sarason, The Making of an American Psychologist
dot dot dot (as they say)
A given in hospital operations is unlimited inputs of energy and resources; this results in waste in the name of hygiene, insurance and regulatory considerations, and “the best” care. However, the fact that worldwide “energy demand is accelerating” and on its current pace “will double by the year 2050” will soon burst upon medicine.
Turning specifically to energy usage, the Health Care Energy Project tells us that hospitals “use twice as much energy per square foot as office buildings…” In addition, hospitals consume large quantities of petroleum-based, processed, and transported products ranging from aspirin to jells and lubricants to plastic dinnerware and gloves to pharmaceuticals, syringes, IV and dialysis tubing, to name but a few. And most of these items are produced for one-time, non-recyclable use. Petroleum derivatives are also found in many computer parts, electronic equipment, furniture, and so on.
… hospitals “use twice as much energy per square foot as office buildings…”
As the costs of oil and natural gas have risen in recent years facilities managers are trying to make their buildings more energy efficient, hoping that such savings will offset price rises. Yet, a 2006 survey of hospitals found:
More than 90% … reported higher energy costs over the previous year [2005], and more than half cited increases in double-digit percentages.
The facilities management response is to replace, retrofit or upgrade inefficient infrastructure —boilers, lighting fixtures, building insulation, windows, etc., and in general to “modernize” facilities — in accordance with the Energy Star Program. Some of the newest “green” hospital building approaches promise to reduce energy consumption by as much as 60% below code mandates. This is encouraging, but only a beginning.
However, new construction is done only when it makes “economic sense,” leaving many older hospitals and kindred structures too obsolete to “economically” justify retrofitting or demolishing and replacement — again energy is presumed to be plentiful and cheaper than upgrading — and no consideration whatsoever is given to its scarcity. Moreover, the costs for new hospital construction are soaring, another factor traceable to increasingly expensive fossil fuels. Dave Carpenter, summarizing a 2006 energy survey of hospitals, comments on the constraints facilities managers face:
Money-related reasons were among those given most often in response to a … question asking why recommended energy-saving measures hadn’t been implemented, including 37% who reported a lack of funds. Additionally, 31% cited other priorities, 26% said the payback period was judged to be too long, 23% said operations and maintenance budgets were underfunded and 16% cited lack of senior management commitment and support.
Given these constraints:
Facilities managers have little choice but to stay on the lookout for energy savings wherever they can be found. [One manager] says “it’s going to get worse before it gets better…”
We would argue that “it,” energy costs, will not get better. The entire health care industry will be forced to accommodate to dwindling fossil resources while simultaneously beginning to face the consequences of global warming.
This is stark because the health care system —already stressed in other ways — could begin to fail and even collapse for want of energy and a surge in patients.
… the health care system … could begin to fail and even collapse…
The dimensions of what we face are uncertain, but the major question undeniably is how will hospitals change given the ecological (global warming as well as multiple sources of pollution and resource scarcity) and geological (twilight of fossil fuels) state of affairs the world now faces?
:}
And the answer is?
:}
The Disposable Society and Industrial Society hit the medical profession hard. They throw out and stamp out enough product to treat most of the third world. It is despicable actually. We wonder why we spend twice as much on medicine as the rest of the world and have crappier outcomes? Well once hospitals became “cost centers”, the game was pretty much over.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224183113.htm
ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2010) — Wider adoption of the practice of recycling medical equipment — including laparoscopic ports and durable cutting tools typically tossed out after a single use — could save hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars annually and curb trash at medical centers, the second-largest waste producers in the United States after the food industry.
The recommendation, made in an analysis by Johns Hopkins researchers in the March issue of the journal Academic Medicine, noted that with proper sterilization, recalibration and testing, reuse of equipment is safe.
“No one really thinks of good hospitals as massive waste producers, but they are,” says lead author Martin Makary, M.D., M.P.H., a surgeon and associate professor of public health at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “There are many things hospitals can do to decrease waste and save money that they are not currently doing.”
Hospitals toss out everything from surgical gowns and towels to laparoscopic ports and expensive ultrasonic cutting tools after a single use. In operating rooms, some items that are never even used are thrown away — single-use devices that are taken out of their packaging must be tossed out because they could have been contaminated. Selecting such good devices for resterilization and retesting could decrease the amount of needless waste from hospitals.
And, the researchers say, hospitals could procure more items designed to be used safely more than once after being sterilized.
Hospitals, they add, are increasingly attracted to reprocessing because recycled devices can cost half as much as new equipment. Only about a quarter of hospitals in the United States used at least one type of reprocessed medical device in 2002, and while the number is growing, the practice is not yet widespread, they say. Banner Health in Phoenix, they write, saved nearly $1.5 million in 12 months from reprocessing operating room supplies such as compression sleeves, open but unused devices, pulse oximeters and more.
:}
One Hospital ONE point 2 million $$$. How many Hospitals are there in operation in the US? My god people wake up.
People always ask me, “why did you study psychology”? I always reply, “because saving the planet Earth from Humans is all about changing behavior. Doctors are a case in point. Doctors are investors. What do they invest in? Why highly profitable things…like coal mines, plastics manufacturing, and utilities. So they know that if they change their behavior at work – even though they make money in the short run – in the long term they could lose money as the very things that make them wealthy become less profitable. They also know that their work load will drop because people stay healthier. So, while all other businesses are cutting costs through things like recycling and waste reduction on the back end and enviro friendly practices on the front end you still hear terms like “barriers” and “hurdles” in the healthcare industry. These are polite terms for “no way” and “not in your lifetime”. In all fairness, this article is dated 2003 and in some ways that is a lifetime ago…others not so much…
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2003/06/medical_product.html
« The Future of the Medical Device Industry | Main | Move Over X-Rays, Welcome T-Rays »
Designing medical products for recyclability is tough. And recapturing medical equipment for recycling is even trickier. Learn how the industry is managing the journey toward “green”:
The eco-friendliness drive is accelerating in the medical products industry, but the road to “green” is marked with many potholes. For starters, increased use of disposable products has exacerbated hospital waste. And designing medical products to be easily disassembled and recycled continues to be confounding because many medical devices are required to be extra-tough—able to endure falls and harsh sterilization. But many manufacturers, vendors and suppliers are facing such obstacles head-on.
“Two years ago you couldn’t get group purchasing organizations for hospitals to talk about environmentally preferable purchasing,” says Laura Brannen, co-director for Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), “but now many champion the cause.” For instance, Baxter Healthcare of Illinois, one of the largest medical products manufacturers, together with group purchaser Premier Inc. and Catholic Health Care West, both of California, is trying to create an advisory group that will delve into recycling and waste-reduction issues, such as decreasing medical packaging and recycling single-use plastics.
And the H2E program is attacking the environmental problem from many fronts. “H2E hopes to provide the framework and initiate discussions on how the industry can create processes and infrastructure that develop take-back programs, or products and packaging that are stackable and returnable,” says Brannen. “H2E is also pursuing partnerships between manufacturers and distributors to establish methods that let distributors back-haul plastics to the manufacturer or plastic recyclers. The group’s ultimate goal is reaching medical device designers so products have minimal environmental impact.”
What a Waste
Hospitals produce over 6,600 tons of waste per day, estimates H2E, at least 15% more than 10 years ago due to the proliferation of disposable products. And this estimate does not even take into account the output of private medical and dental clinics, veterinarians, long-term care, laboratories and independent blood banks.
Accounting for 75-80% of a healthcare facility’s waste, solid waste is the most sizeable portion, says H2E, encompassing paper, metal, glass and plastics. Chlorinated materials, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), are especially problematic because incinerating waste with chlorinated content produces dioxins, which can cause cancer and hormonal defects. In fact, burning medical waste with chlorinated materials is the third biggest source of dioxins in the environment, says Health Care Without Harm (HCWH). And globally, waste incinerators account for 69% of dioxins, estimates HCWH.
PVC is found in a wide range of medical products, from disposable intravenous (IV) bags and tubing to bedpans and notebook binders. Additionally, it’s common in durable medical products, where it is particularly difficult to reduce because of a dearth of PVC-labeling and PVC-free devices. “A first step in reducing PVC use in these applications would be to require vendors to disclose the PVC content in their products,” says Brannen. “Medical products and their packaging are often not labeled with their contents.”
Currently, there is no U.S. industry standard that calls for the labeling of injection molded parts, says Chris Belisle, senior project engineer for injection molder Phillips Plastics Corp. of Wisconsin. However, several internationally owned medical OEMS are preparing for recycling mandates that may be enforced in the future. For example, Datex-Ohmeda Inc. of Finland, a supplier of anesthesia equipment, denotes the resin acronym on every injection molded part.
Designing for Disassembly
An even more fundamental approach to the “green” issue is designing medical products for easy dismantling and recycling—not an easy feat for many medical devices. “Common methods for making disassembly easier such as snap fits, may work well for some products, but they may not be appropriate for use in certain medical applications,” says Belisle. Unlike other products, many medical devices are required to pass demanding drop tests and to withstand severe sterilization that could damage fragile internal electronic circuits. In some cases, designing for recyclability could even negatively impact medical product design and increase production costs.
Nonetheless, some companies are incorporating recyclability concerns in product development. Says Pedro Torres, a supply manager for Datex-Ohmeda’s manufacturing plant in Wisconsin, “Taking time to review each step in a development process may at first appear to slow it down, but we found that strategic cradle-to-grave program reviews improve current products and provide cost-saving initiatives for future programs.”
Design engineers can take certain measures to promote a product’s future recyclability. According to Jack Pape, a VP with rotational molding company, Meese Orbitron Dunne Co., New Jersey, engineers can reduce the priciest part of disassembly—labor—by incorporating simple hinges. Furthermore, he recommends specifying recyclable materials, such as linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), as well as materials that are commonly used and likely to remain in wide circulation.
Engineers should also refrain from modifying the material through additives, textures and foaming agents because this drives up the cost of recycling and diminishes the recycled material’s potential market and value, Pape says. Moreover, he advises engineers to consider the effect of weathering—dirt, debris, and wear and tear—on recyclability. Finally, he tells engineers to steer clear of adhesive labels and inks whenever possible because they are difficult and expensive to remove.
Other Hurdles
Pape’s company already designs many products for future recyclability, but he acknowledges that it’s only a start. “Just because a product can be recycled doesn’t mean it will be economically viable to do so when the product is ready to enter the waste stream,” he explains. “Nor is there any guarantee there will be a market for the recycled material.”
And that’s not all design engineers must take into account. Another issue is how the price of the recycled material will match up against that of the virgin material at the product’s anticipated date of obsolescence or disposal. “Further clouding the forecast,” he notes, “are the possibilities that new materials may be developed after manufacturing that render recycled material useless. And environmental regulations may be enacted after manufacturing that could eliminate use of the material or increase the cost to use it.”
“After considering these possibilities, design engineers must address their greatest and most costly challenge: how the product will be removed from the waste stream and transferred into the recycling stream, assuming there’s a market for the material,” continues Pape. He points out that there is currently no government-sponsored collection program for obsolete medical equipment. “Who will bear the responsibility for tagging a given product for recycling at the end of its useful life and who will assume the cost of shipping it to a recycling operation that can accommodate the given material?” he asks.
Long Road Ahead
Indeed, medical product manufacturers, vendors and suppliers have their work cut out for them. But through more conscientious purchasing, eco-friendly design and established recycling programs, they can make steady progress in their long journey toward a “green” medical products industry.
Source: Think “RECYCLE” for Medical Products
Jean M. Hoffman
Medical Design News
:}
The link to the article was broken so I printed only the author’s name for attribution. However here is the drirect link to the publication and part of a 2008 article. Apparently GREEN In Medicine has gotten a bit more lively:
http://www.medicaldesignnews.com
http://medicaldesign.com/engineering-prototyping/sustainable_design_medical/index.html
Mar 1, 2008 12:00 PM, Chris Kadamus, Principal Design Engineer, Cambridge Consultants, Cambridge, Mass.
Medical products account for an enormous amount of the solid, industrial, and chemical waste in developed countries throughout the world. In the U.S. alone, hospitals produce more than 6,600 tons of waste per day, including 800 tons of non-hazardous, and potentially recyclable, plastic parts. In addition, many medical products use hazardous chemicals and solvents during manufacture or include materials that can be harmful if not disposed of properly. Disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous medical waste can be costly from an environmental and financial point of view. As such, it could benefit the medical-device industry to embrace sustainable design, a concept in which products are evaluated in terms of financial impact and social and environmental impact as well.
Historically, the medical-device industry as a whole has been risk averse. This is primarily because of stringent FDA regulations, fear that alternate methods or materials may compromise patient health, and an overarching fear of legal liability. Adding design for sustainability to an already rigorous set of design requirements, including biocompatibility and aseptic assembly, can put an additional burden on design teams whose primary goals are time-to-market and FDA compliance.
Furthermore, much of the medical-device industry generates most of their revenue from disposable products. Approximately 90% of medical-device waste consists of items designated for one-time use. Fears of contamination, the high costs of sterilization and reprocessing, and the desire for continuous revenue have firmly anchored the disposable products’ business model in the minds of industry leaders.
There are, however, a number of driving factors and significant competitive advantages in bringing sustainable design to the medical-device industry. First, while the U.S. has lagged in the ratification of environment legislation, the European Union has moved to ban some hazardous materials, promote recycling and encourage energy efficiency using legislation. Standards such as WEEE (Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment), RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment), REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), and the EuP regulations (Energy Using Products), while not currently applicable to the U.S. or enforced for many medical products, have gained significant support in recent years. Many experts agree it is only a matter of time before these or similar standards will be enacted in the U.S. and become applicable to the medical-device industry.
:}
Risk adverse my ass.
:}
We will get back to energy use and Healthcare tomorrow. This is such an obvious linkage that I thought I would put it up.
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2259898/obama-healthcare-victory-clears
The chances of US climate change legislation passing this year received a major boost after President Obama secured victory in his historic battle to pass healthcare reforms late last night.
The successful House vote on the legislation following over a year of intense and fraught negotiations will clear a path for the administration to turn to its next large piece of administrative business: climate change.
Some senior Democrat Senators have suggested that following such a long battle to pass healthcare legislation the Senate will have “no appetite” to deal with a climate change bill that is likely to prove equally contentious.
However, both the administration and Democrat leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives remain adamant that they want to pursue a vote this year and with the party still behind in the polls ahead of November’s mid-term elections the race is now on to move the legislation forward as quickly as possible.
The key healthcare vote comes just days after the compromise version of the climate change bill being prepared by the bi-partisan trio of Senators Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham, and independent Joe Lieberman, received a further boost when both environmental and industrial groups signaled their support for the proposed legislation.
In a surprise move, Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist at the US Chamber of Commerce, told reporters last week that the work being done by the three senators was “largely in synch” with the business group’s views.
Josten stopped short of fully endorsing the bill, but following a meeting with the Senator’s last Wednesday he struck a markedly different tone to the outright opposition to previous versions of the bill that the Chamber adopted last year.
“The fairest comment would be, directionally speaking, the way they are trying to conform and shape this bill I would suggest is largely in sync with what most people in American industry think is the direction you are going to have to go if you are going to have a successful program,” he told reporters.
:}
Anybody that says there is no proof of Global Warming is either being paid off, blind or lying.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2229
by bill sherwonit
During the summer of 2007, lightning strikes sparked five tundra fires on Alaska’s North Slope. Two of the fires — rare events north of the Arctic Circle — began in neighboring drainages, only a couple of days apart. That, in itself, might have gained the attention of tundra researchers. But the 2007 fire season would ultimately burn a record swath across the North Slope, while reshaping the way scientists think about the Arctic’s response to global warming.
Researchers have known for years that the Arctic landscape is being transformed by rising temperatures. Now, scientists are amassing growing evidence that major events precipitated by warming — such as fires and the collapse of slopes caused by melting permafrost — are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic. The cold, dry, and treeless ecosystem — characterized by an extremely short growing season; underlying layers of frozen soil, or permafrost; and grasses, sedges, mosses, lichens, and berry plants — will eventually be replaced by shrub lands and even boreal forest, scientists forecast.
Much of the Arctic has experienced temperature increases of 3 to 5 degrees F in the past half-century and could see temperatures soar 10 degrees F above pre-industrial levels by 2100. University of Vermont professor Breck Bowden, a watershed specialist participating in a long-term study of the Alaskan tundra, said that such rapidly rising temperatures will mean that the “tundra as we imagine it today will largely be gone throughout the Arctic. It may take longer than 50 or even 100 years, but the inevitable direction is toward boreal forest or something like it.”
Dominique Bachelet, a climate change scientist at Oregon State University, forecasts that by 2100 tundra “will largely disappear from the Alaskan landscape, along with the related plants, animals, and even human ecosystems that are based upon it.” She made that prediction in 2004, and now says “the basic premise still holds, but the mechanism of change may be different than we thought.” Instead of long-term, incrementally complex changes caused by gradually warming temperatures, “extreme events will be the important triggers for change.” Hot-burning fires or slumping hillsides tied to melting permafrost could “clean the slate and allow new species to establish themselves,” Bachelet said.
The transformation of the tundra — the word comes from the Finnish, tunturia, meaning “treeless plain” — will have a profound impact on the creatures that live and breed there, including grizzly bears, wolves, foxes, and many species of waterfowl and migratory songbirds. Especially hard-hit could be caribou, which depend heavily on lichen as a food source.
:}
This is an amazing article. More amazing because Sarah Palin has lived through this for the last 10 years and still does not admit that it is even happening. Then there is the methane and the frozen Woolly Mammoths that keep popping out of the ground.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 19.00 GMT
Permafrost in Siberia. Methane emissions from the Arctic permafrost increased by 31% from 2003-07, figures show. Photograph: Francis Latreille/Corbis
Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.
They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.
Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: “High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions.”
Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates
:}
And it is confusing the birds.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/brown_pelicans_wont_flow_south.html
Environment, Oregon Coast, Outdoors »
View full sizeBenjamin Reed/Los Angeles TimesA group of brown pelicans gathers at the Wildlife Center of the North Coast near Astoria. These birds were among those lodged at the center after they failed to fly south for the winter.Unlike past years, they’ve refused to return to California.
In January, scientists were stunned to see hundreds of brown pelicans that normally fly south before winter lingering on the Oregon coast.
Now it’s March and dozens are still here.
“This is a first for us,” said Roy Lowe, seabird specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Biologists are worried. Birds have starved to death and been pummeled by storms. Scientists are also perplexed about why they’ve altered their habits. Climate change could be a factor — no one really knows for sure.
But last week, birders counted dozens on the coast. Lowe said there have been sightings of 60 in Newport, 25 at Charleston and seven in Depoe Bay.
“Maybe some of them will survive the spring,” he said. “I haven’t heard of any moralities. They haven’t looked good for a long time, but they continue to hang in there.”
The downwelling ocean conditions off the coast this time of year do not support an abundance of forage fish for the pelicans. Lowe said they could be finding food in estuaries and lower bays, but they’re also scavenging.
“They’ve been hanging around where people are crabbing and going for any bits of fallen food,” said Deborah Jaques, a wildlife biologist in Astoria who contracts with state and federal governments.
In the summer, flocks of about 20,000 brown pelicans live on the Oregon Coast and then fly to Southern California and Mexico before winter to breed.
Scientists said the El Nino conditions, with warmer ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, could have affected the brown pelican’s food supply.
In January, many were found injured by storms or starved to death.
:}
Things better change soon…
:}
I hardly ever use this blog as a personal soapbox but the State Journal Register has taken to publishing OP/ED pieces and long letters from one James Monk “President” of the Illinois Energy Association extolling the virtues of coal and opposing proposed Cap and Trade Policies. So here is a letter they did not run:
Editor
State Journal Register
One Copley Plaza
Springfield, IL 62701
Emailed – 12/31/09
Dear Editor:
How ironic it must be to work at the SJ-R these days. First, on a single day, you run an OP/Ed piece by Ann Coulter that claims global warming is “all made up”. On the back page of that same section you run an AP article about the many changes we humans will have to make to “adjust” to global warming. Are the facts overwhelming the “opinions” yet?
But it got worse on December 29th. On that day you ran a long letter to the editors by the appropriately named James Monk, President of Illinois Energy Association arguing that regulation of coal fired powerplant byproducts as hazardous waste will harm the economy of the nation. While on page 6, on the back of page 5, is a long article with the headline: MERCURY POLLUTION UP IN ILLINOIS. This was blamed on coal fired powerplants. Constiuent components of the coal byproducts can contain arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds. This sounds very toxic to me.
After the 200 million gallon spill in Tennessee, this 130 million lb. yearly ticking time bomb needs to be declared toxic and cleaned up. I don’t think that coal is as cheap to burn as some people claim. You SJ-R guys are only a page away from getting the facts (or truth) on the same page as the OP/Ed page, congratulations.
Doug Nicodemus
948 e. adams st.
riverton, IL 62561
629-7031
dougnic55@yahoo.com
:}
What more can you say about a couple of spoiled rich kids whose daddy helped form the John Birch Society and was in the KKK. You can send em to school, dress em up and make em smell pretty. You can not make them smart or socially responsible. They pay Walter Williams and George Mason (alleged) University a loto money to be their best black man however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries
The Koch brothers also operate the Koch Family Foundations, a major source of funding for conservative and libertarian political causes in the United States, including think tanks such as the Cato Institute. Their father helped found the John Birch Society, though neither brother is a member or supporter of the organization. David’s political activism also included running as the vice presidential nominee of the United States Libertarian Party in 1980, when he and running mate Ed Clark finished fourth with 921,299 votes.
In April 2006, the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation announced it had contributed $1 million to help preserve the tallgrass prairies of the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in Chase County, Kansas. The donation made to the Kansas Prairie Legacy Campaign is reportedly the single largest private donation in the State’s history.[citation needed] Currently Liz Koch is the president of the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation and has been reported as saying that the Flint Hills of Kansas were a special place for both Fred and Mary Koch.
Koch Industries also founded Americans for Prosperity, formed as a successor to Citizens for a Sound Economy. Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $5.6 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. [10][11]
Rich Fink, a Koch executive vice president, is a member of the board of directors of Americans for Prosperity. Previously he served as president of Citizens for a Sound Economy. He also founded the Mercatus Center.
:}
BURN BURN BURN that’s all they want to do.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/16
The Tea Partiers
Charles and David Koch
CEO and Executive Vice President, Koch Industries
The multibillionaire brothers not only run the nation’s largest private energy company, they rival Exxon in funding the front groups that spread disinformation about the dangers of climate change. Over the years, the Kochs and their foundations have lavished millions on climate deniers at the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, which Charles founded in 1977. Cato, in turn, supports the work of Patrick Michaels, a leading climate denier who attempts to discredit the international scientific consensus on global warming while accepting money from coal companies. As author Thomas Frank observes in What’s the Matter With Kansas?, “Koch money subsidizes the mass production of bad ideas.”
One major recipient of Koch cash is Americans for Prosperity, where David chairs the foundation’s board. In addition to fomenting last summer’s town-hall brawls over health care reform, AFP sponsored a “Hot Air Tour” on climate change, deploying a manned balloon at 75 events for the purpose of “Exposing the Ballooning Costs of Global Warming Hysteria.” At the events, the group’s president, Tim Phillips, grossly exaggerated the costs of climate legislation, calling it a trillion-dollar tax on American families.
Last October, at an AFP summit attended by David Koch, the assembled Tea Partiers screened a climate-denial film that accused advocates like Al Gore of wanting to take civilization “back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” Such events, Koch proclaimed, “bring to reality the vision” of “fighting for the economic freedoms that made our nation the most prosperous society in history.” Last year, seeking to defend its own prosperity against a carbon-capped future, Koch Industries spent more than $8.5 million on lobbying.
:}
There is a place that they can burn in and I Hades I believe is the place for it:
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Hades.html
In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the underworld, the kingdom of the dead. (The Romans called him Pluto.) Although the name Hades is often used to indicate the underworld itself, it rightfully belongs only to the god, whose kingdom was known as the land of Hades or house of Hades.
Hades was the son of Cronus* and Rhea, two of the Titans who once ruled the universe. The Titans had other children, the gods Zeus* and Poseidon* and the goddesses Demeter*, Hera*, and Hestia. When Hades was born, Cronus swallowed him as he had swallowed his other children at birth. However, Zeus escaped this fate, and he tricked Cronus into taking a potion that made him vomit up Hades and his siblings.
Together these gods and goddesses rebelled against the Titans and seized power from them. After gaining control of the universe, Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus drew lots to divide it among themselves. Zeus gained control of the sky, Poseidon took the sea, and Hades received the underworld.
The Underworld Kingdom. The kingdom of the dead was divided into two regions. At the very bottom lay Tartarus, a land of terrible blackness where the wicked suffered eternal torments.
Read more:
Hades – Myth Encyclopedia – mythology, Greek, god, names, ancient, people, children, evil, fire http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Go-Hi/Hades.html#ixzz0eUsHq0ie
:}
More tomorrow
:}