Author Archives: RRIAbraham

Now you can use Google to organize your neighbors around solar.

Following an exceptionally dry winter in 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown mandated that cities cut back on water use by 25 percent. Californians responded by letting their grass turn brown, or replacing it with artificial turf and less thirsty plants.

Sod suppliers, landscapers, and conservation activists now say that lawns are coming back into fashion, the Guardian reports. California did away with mandatory water restrictions in June, which may have sent the wrong message to residents. In August, urban water consumption had risen nearly 10 percent from the previous year.

Before it dropped these restrictions, the state spent $350 million on rebates for those who tore out their water-sucking grass. Anti-lawn campaigns emerged, such as “Brown is the new green,” and the media drought shamed those who maintained lush, grassy expanses.

It seemed like these efforts were working: One major lawn supplier saw orders plunge from 500 per day to 80 during the height of drought shaming.

The orders have now crept into the hundreds — despite the severe drought conditions that persist. Another dusty winter would send California into its sixth straight year of drought.

Link to original:  

Now you can use Google to organize your neighbors around solar.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, solar power, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now you can use Google to organize your neighbors around solar.

Campaign Reporters Hate Everyone

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Who gets the most positive campaign coverage? Vox asked Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company, to run the numbers, and the answer is John Kasich. Who gets the most negative coverage? Hillary Clinton.

No surprise there, I suppose. As usual, though, I’d caution against making very much out of this. For starters, there’s not a lot of difference between the candidates. And sometimes there’s just bad news to report. I think that Hillary has been the target of some poor reporting on her email problems, but that doesn’t change the fact that she was bound to get a lot of negative coverage no matter what. That’s life.

The chart on the right shows net coverage (positive minus negative) for all five of the remaining candidates, and the most telling statistic is that campaign coverage is just overwhelmingly negative, full stop. On average, each of the candidates received about 5 percent positive coverage and 35 percent negative coverage. It’s no wonder that everyone thinks they’re treated uniquely badly by the press. They obsess over the fact that they (really and truly) get overwhelmingly bad coverage, without realizing that everyone else does too. Apparently campaign reporters just hate the idea of writing anything positive about anybody.

See original article:

Campaign Reporters Hate Everyone

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Campaign Reporters Hate Everyone

These Guys Were on the Deepwater Horizon When It Blew Up

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform exploded in June 2010, killing 11 workers and sending roughly five million barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, much of the media coverage featured sludge-covered seabirds, empty shrimp baskets, and other environmental impacts. But for Doug Brown, the catastrophe was even more immediate. He was the rig’s chief engineer, standing in the control room when a deafening blast sent him flying and turned his workplace into a fiery, oil-soaked hell.

In The Great Invisible, a documentary about the blowout and its aftermath that premieres today in Los Angeles and New York, Brown breaks into tears as he recalls the “incoherent screamings of pain” of his coworkers: “I saw men completely lose control.”

This virtually untold side of the Deepwater Horizon story emerges from a melange of archival footage (including home videos shot onboard the rig) and original interviews with rig workers and family members of men who died in the disaster. They speak of pride at working on one of the world’s most advanced drilling rigs, terror at the explosion, and the post-traumatic stress and guilt that still haunt them.

Above all, they tell of their betrayal by Transocean, the rig’s owner, and BP, its operator—companies to which they gave their best years, and which they now blame for systematically walking back basic precautions in the months preceding the explosion. The film is equally critical of the federal government, which has resumed selling offshore drilling leases while offering no new rig-safety regulations.

The Great Invisible also paints a vivid portrait of life in the bayou fishing communities where filmmaker Margaret Brown (no relation to Doug) grew up—communities still reeling four years after the spill. I spoke with Brown about producing a film that is as much an exploration of America’s love-hate relationship with the oil industry as it is a critique of a few miscreant companies—and about how she encouraged her emotionally scarred central characters to speak out for the first time.

Climate Desk: You grew up in southern Alabama. How did your own background affect your filmmaking approach?

Margaret Brown: That’s pretty much why I made the film. My dad was sending me pictures of his house with the orange oil booms they put out during the spill. It was weird to see your home surrounded by the booms. It was really emotional. And then I started talking to people in the area, and everyone was super depressed. It’s not like a hurricane where people know how to respond. In a hurricane, there’s a drill if you grow up down there. With this, nobody knew what to do. There was a lot of uncertainty and depression. And that was what I responded to.

Filmmaker Margaret Brown

When we first went down there, there were so many cameras on the beach for like two or three months. And then it went away. I was curious about what would happen when all the other cameras left—when that image went off the news of the plume of oil leaking. The minute that was gone, all the reporters were gone. I stayed four years. I was curious what it would be like to make a film about something everyone knows about. How do you make that novel and fresh?

The film changed. It started with me wanting me to make something about where I grew up, and turned into something about the larger question of how Americans relate to petroleum. I wanted to see if I could make something personal, but also where people can watch it and understand a little more about what happens when we fill up our car. Hopefully people would have the same kind of thought process that I did, learning about how deeply entrenched the government is, how it makes so much money off offshore leases—which is probably a big answer to why things aren’t changing.

CD: Which of your initial assumptions were challenged or changed as you made the film?

MB: I think just the scope of what we talk about when we talk about oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. And after watching all the grandstanding in Congress, I really did think something might change in terms of safety regulations. Maybe that’s naïve. But this is the first major oil spill where something hasn’t changed. It made me a little more cynical.

But I think it’s a timely moment. People are realizing climate change is real in a way they didn’t 10 years ago. I think the film is part of the conversation, but it’s not the answer. I think people see it in a really simple way, like it’s either “Boycott BP!” or “Drill baby drill!” There’s no real understanding of the huge expanse in between, and that’s frustrating to me. We are all connected to what BP is giving us.

The spill happened, and then nothing happened. I hope the film can address why nothing happened, and I think a lot of that is Congress. But also that, the minute it got off the news, people stopped thinking about. It seemed like, “Okay, they capped it. It’s gone.” But actually, there are no new safety regulations. It’s not gone.

Doug Brown was chief engineer on the Deepwater Horizon when the rig exploded in 2010. Courtesy Margaret Brown

CD: How did you get the workers and their families to open up?

MB: That was the hardest part, actually, those interviews. Rig hand Stephen Stone and Doug Brown were absolutely the hardest people to get to agree to be in the film. I think that was mainly because of the PTSD they’d suffered from the accident, and they and their wives weren’t sure if being in the film would be better or worse for them. I think they’re still not sure. We still talk about it. But I think mainly the consensus has been that it’s been cathartic and positive to share their story. Those stories of how their lives have changed, and how they haven’t gotten paid, and what happens when you witness this—the guilt and the troubling feelings, the suicidal feelings. It’s some of the scariest stuff there is. They were super brave to be in the movie, because in that industry I think people sort of follow the leader, and those guys decided to speak out and be whistle blowers.

Doug had tried to kill himself, and it was really hard to get them to open up. I spent hours with his, Meccah, on the phone talking, and crying sometimes, because I think they thought at first that I was a spy from Transocean. They had such a level of mistrust and being messed around with by those companies that they didn’t believe that I was an independent filmmaker. So I went from being a spy to someone you would talk to. They felt that Doug had been so loyal to that company, and was so proud of his job. To go from that to feeling like—I mean, Doug struggles with a lot of guilt for something that he had little to no control over. And it’s interesting to me who feels guilt in this film—and who should feel guilty.

The workers are proud of what they’re doing. There’s a sense of bringing oil to the American people and providing energy. If you just look at it from the left, and how bad BP is, you’re going to miss a lot of what’s really going on.

Follow this link:  

These Guys Were on the Deepwater Horizon When It Blew Up

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Guys Were on the Deepwater Horizon When It Blew Up

Can farmers outsmart climate change?

Can farmers outsmart climate change?

26 Sep 2014 7:44 PM

Share

Share

Can farmers outsmart climate change?

×

Attention, farmers of the world! Here’s a question for you: How do you feed a world with 9 billion people? Furthermore, how will you do so while facing hotter seasons, droughts, weirder weather, and water shortages?

That’s a mighty tall order, but let me assure you: There is work underway to plan for this overwhelming future. It’s called climate-smart agriculture, and if you haven’t heard of it already, here’s what you need to know.

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA, not to be confused with, CSAs) is the idea that farmers — along with their friends with money and agriculture/climate science knowledge — should develop and use technologies that work with the ever-changing climate, not against it. Why? Well, to put it simply, so that climate change doesn’t completely disrupt our food system forcing us all to go hungry.

A recent article in Modern Farmer explains that up until recently, CSA was more of a philosophy than a solid plan:

Climate-smart agriculture is a sort of overview concept originally put forth in 2010 by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization … [it is] a general idea about adjusting all forms of agriculture (“farms, crops, livestock, aquaculture, and capture fisheries”) to better adapt to a changing climate.

CSA is going to be difficult to implement. It requires academic research, technology development, and the money to make it happen. But when it all comes together, CSA could help farmers deal with climate change affecting crop health and yields, move away from environmentally harmful farming practices, and learn to use less carbon-reliant technology.

Luckily, CSA is starting to gain attention. The Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research, a group of 15 scientific research centers that specialize in assisting farmers in the tropics, recently issued a statement that it would commit a 60 whopping percent of its operating budget (which is over $55 million) to develop climate-smart tools for 500 million farmers around the world. (Let’s take a moment to pause for applause.)

And here’s a shock for you: The U.S. government is starting to get on board, too! Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recently launched the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, a group that promotes agriculture that reduces the impact of climate change.

This is a CSA we hope more farmers sign up for.

Source:
The other CSA: What is climate-smart agriculture?

, Modern Farmer.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

View original post here: 

Can farmers outsmart climate change?

Posted in alo, Anchor, aquaculture, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can farmers outsmart climate change?