Tag Archives: type

Eaarth – Bill McKibben

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Eaarth

Making a Life on a Tough New Planet

Bill McKibben

Genre: Nature

Price: $2.99

Publish Date: April 13, 2010

Publisher: Henry Holt and Co.

Seller: Macmillan


"Read it, please. Straight through to the end. Whatever else you were planning to do next, nothing could be more important." —Barbara Kingsolver Twenty years ago, with The End of Nature , Bill McKibben offered one of the earliest warnings about global warming. Those warnings went mostly unheeded; now, he insists, we need to acknowledge that we've waited too long, and that massive change is not only unavoidable but already under way. Our old familiar globe is suddenly melting, drying, acidifying, flooding, and burning in ways that no human has ever seen. We've created, in very short order, a new planet, still recognizable but fundamentally different. We may as well call it Eaarth. That new planet is filled with new binds and traps. A changing world costs large sums to defend—think of the money that went to repair New Orleans, or the trillions it will take to transform our energy systems. But the endless economic growth that could underwrite such largesse depends on the stable planet we've managed to damage and degrade. We can't rely on old habits any longer. Our hope depends, McKibben argues, on scaling back—on building the kind of societies and economies that can hunker down, concentrate on essentials, and create the type of community (in the neighborhood, but also on the Internet) that will allow us to weather trouble on an unprecedented scale. Change—fundamental change—is our best hope on a planet suddenly and violently out of balance.

Source article – 

Eaarth – Bill McKibben

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Eaarth – Bill McKibben

A shellfish diet might be even better than going vegan

Not all fish are created equal when it comes to their impact on the climate. In the prophetic words of Dr. Seuss: “Some are glad. And some are sad. And some are very, very bad.”

A new study takes a rare look at the carbon emissions that come with your choice of seafood. And there are a lot of surprises. Farming catfish creates more emissions than farming chicken, while eating shellfish is even more climate-friendly than a purely vegan diet, according to the study.

This suggests that not all pescetarianism is created equal — and throws another loop into the complicated task of ranking fish sustainability. Take the aforementioned farmed catfish. The Monterey Bay Aquarium calls catfish raised in tanks a “best choice.” But when the researchers looked at the full lifecycle of resources needed to support catfish farms, they found that they were pretty dirty. The recirculating pumps needed to control conditions in catfish tanks require a significant amount of energy, and a lot of that energy comes from coal plants in Asia.

Your lobster bisque is almost as bad: The motors used to check lobster pots burn up a lot of gas. “Lobster has a terrible carbon footprint,” says Ray Hilborn, one of the researchers responsible for the study. On the other side of the scale were mollusk aquaculture — oysters, mussels, scallops, and clams — which are wonderfully efficient, and small wild fish, which don’t take much energy to gather up.

The methods used in the study were sound, and results line up with the findings of other studies, says Richard Waite, a food expert at the World Resources Institute, who was not involved in the research. However, this study didn’t consider the amount of land that different animals require, Waite notes.

About half the greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from farmers clearing forests. If you include the land needed to feed the animals, it significantly increases the emissions released in livestock production — making fish look better by comparison. And if you consider the type of land being cleared for farms, it downgrades the sustainability of shrimp farms in Southeast Asia. (It is possible to do shrimp farming right, as Amelia Urry found when she visited this cool shrimpery in Hawaii.)

Percentage mangrove deforestation between 2000 and 2012, and dominant land uses of deforested areas in 2012.Richards and Friess

But Waite agreed with the study’s major conclusions. It’s just hard to beat a shellfish farm, he says: “There’s no land use at all, no freshwater use, no fertilizer use — in fact, they clean up the surrounding water.” Shellfish farms are usually in coastal waters, where there’s plenty of space. Consider those factors together, and it looks like it’s more environmentally friendly to get your calories from mussels than from veggies and beans.

The study was supported by a grant from the Seafood Industry Research Fund. Funding can often subtly (or not so subtly) influence science, but in this case it’s unlikely to have done so, given the study was comparing the relative merits of different sectors of the seafood industry.

“A real surprise to me was how low the impact of salmon farming was,” study author Hilborn says. “I’ve done a lot of work with Alaska fishers and they basically hate salmon farming, but it looks like it’s not so bad.”

For a long time, people have been saying that seafood could be a sustainable solution as we try to feed a more crowded planet. But it’s important to discriminate between the good and the “very, very bad.” This one has a little star — it’s basically carbon neutral. And this one has a little car — it’s a fossil-fueled fish. Stay away from the fossil-fueled fish.

Taken from: 

A shellfish diet might be even better than going vegan

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, aquaculture, FF, GE, LG, Monterey, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A shellfish diet might be even better than going vegan

Leverage and Liquidity Are the Keys to a Strong Banking System

Mother Jones

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

I’m a big fan of higher capital ratios (i.e., lower leverage) as a way of making the banking system safer, so I was disturbed when Tyler Cowen pointed to a new paper suggesting that high capital ratios don’t reduce the likelihood of financial crises. Instead, a team of researchers suggests that what’s more important is the type of capital. Deposits are the most stable source of funding for any bank, and liquidity is king. Put these together, and what’s important is the loan-to-deposit ratio:

As you can see, the LtD ratio rose steadily in the postwar era, doubling from 50 percent to over 100 percent by 2008. This indicates that credit was expanding, with banks making more loans for every dollar in deposits they took in. This, the authors say, is a better predictor of financial crises than raw leverage:

In this triptych, capital ratios are in the middle, and they don’t change much before and after a financial crisis (denoted by Year 0). However, right before a financial crisis there’s a steady decline in deposits as a percentage of total assets (which indicates a decline in the quality an;d stability of a bank’s capital base) and a steady rise in the loan-to-deposit ratio. These are the indicators that seem to be associated with financial crises.

So is there any point to higher capital standards? Yes indeed: they may not prevent financial crises, but they make recovery from a financial crisis much quicker. Just compare the green line and the red line in the charts below:

Both of these charts show the same thing: in countries with higher capital ratios, recovery from a financial crisis was far faster. Five years out, the difference was a full 13 percentage points of GDP per capita.

If these researchers are right—and I’ll add the usual caveats about this being only one study etc.—then the key to a strong, resilient banking system is twofold: a low loan-to-deposit ratio produces a liquid capital base that helps avoid financial crises, while a low leverage ratio produces the necessary capital to recover quickly if a financial crisis hits anyway.

Leverage and liquidity are key. In one sense, this is nothing new, since anyone could have told you that. But this paper suggests that they’re important for slightly different reasons than we thought.

See original article:  

Leverage and Liquidity Are the Keys to a Strong Banking System

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Leverage and Liquidity Are the Keys to a Strong Banking System

Can You Really Power Your Phone from a Solar Panel?

At approximately 4pm on Oct 18, my phone died. In our modern age, those words fill people with dread, as they mean your constant connection to the world’s information has been severed without your approval. Fortunately, I was near plenty of other computing devices, so I wasn’t entirely cut off, and I had ample access to power for recharging it. Whew, disaster averted!

Putting aside the argument of whether or not we’re too dependent on this type of technology, having a backup for charging your phone seems like a good idea. In my case, I had a small 6-watt solar panel available that I set up on a table outside. The setup was started at 4:25pm and less than an hour later, at 5:05 pm, I was able to power the phone up. It reported only 16 percent power, but it’s not a bad electricity haul for a partially overcast day and only 40 minutes of charging.

From this short trial, it was evident that one of these panels could be quite useful if normal grid power was unavailable. Another great use case could be mounting one of these to a backpack while hiking in order to keep your communication equipment active during a long trek.

Besides simply knowing that you can revive your phone in an emergency, another way to measure this type of unit’s effectiveness would be to calculate how long it would take to pay for itself and the power you’ll save using it. However, in the case of a phone at least, it would be a long, long time. According tothis on ZDNet, it takes only 84 cents per year to charge an iPhone 6 Plus, which has the biggest battery of the Apple phones. Similarly-sized Samsung phones would cost about the same, with older models costing less. My own very rough estimate of my phone’s power cost was .125 cents per charge, given a yearly cost of 46 cents per 365 days if charged every day.

Since my particular 6-watt panel cost nearly $70 with tax, this would mean a payback of roughly 150 years. If a good return on investment is your goal, perhaps putting your money into a savings account would be a better idea. Although things can always be better, it’s nice to step back once in a while and realize just how good we have it. The power for something that would have been considered a supercomputer 20 years ago can now fit in the palm of your hand and access a seemingly infinite amount of information. Each of these can be powered with roughly two quarters worth of power per year.

So a portable panel is a poor investment money-wise, but could be a good option if the power grid goes out. I did a little more testing at my house in the generally sunny region of Tampa, Florida. Tests are summarized in the following results:

Test 1 10/18/2016

My phone (Android Moto G) died. It was put out around 4:25 pm, with the panel pointed roughly toward the sun. I checked it at 5:05pm and was able to power it up. It was reading at only 16 percent at the time, and soon dropped to 15 percent, reporting a low battery.

Test 2 10/20/2016

I set up the charger on the table at 10:10am; it was collecting power within five minutes. Power initially read at 46 percent. It was placed on roughly the same spot as before, in a semi-shaded area, not really aimed towards the sun.

I checked my phone at 12:10pm. It was very bright at that moment and the charger was hot. The phone was resting under the charger to shield it and was warm. The phone read at 44 percentlower than before, but a two percent drop over two hours seems better than normal. The charging icon showed up immediately. Perhaps the charger did not give sufficient (or any) power to charge the panel during the earlier time, but the phone did start to charge later.

Test 3 10/21/2016

I set my phone on the same table at 12:50pm with a 53 percent charge. The panel was facing up, but it was not aimed toward the sun. I checked my phone at 2:21pm; it read at 72 percent power. It was still sunny out at the time, though a partial cloud cover was seen while checking. I checked again at 2:55pm and the phone read at 79 percent. It was sunny when the final check was made.

Test 4 10/24/2016

Hooked up an iPad 3 to the charger at 11:50am with a five percent charge. The sun was fairly bright, and when plugged in, I noticed that it read at six percent almost immediately after panel attachment, but the iPad didnt show as charging.

When I checked again at 4:52pm, it was in the shade from our house. Power read at 28 percent. The device had charged significantly, but it was definitely not at full power.

As you can see from these tests, charging from your house’s electrical grid is normally the best way to keep your electronics functional. On the other hand, though more costly, a home solar system can produce a much shorter payback period and give you some power backup options. If you just want a backup for your phone or tablet, perhaps one of these small panels would be a good fit!

Jeremy Cook is obsessed with tech and creating DIYs. He likes to test new gadgets, like the solar panel phone charger mentioned here, and gives some great advice on how to use them. To see a selection of Home Depot solar panel options,click here.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continue reading:  

Can You Really Power Your Phone from a Solar Panel?

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can You Really Power Your Phone from a Solar Panel?

For the next 24 hours, Al Gore is treating us to celebs, interviews, and his favorite slideshows all about climate change.

Grist sent former fellow Melissa Cronin aboard a four-seat prop plane to the tiny village of Tyonek, Alaska, this summer. Her on-the-ground investigation helped expose a Texas energy company’s plans to develop a coal mine across wetlands and forest that are extremely valuable to the local indigenous people.

Through her dogged reporting, Melissa published Coal’s Last Gamble — the type of fearless journalism we are proud to produce. If you missed the story, check it out here.

As part of our annual winter fund drive, we’re highlighting the stories of 2016 that defined our year. Why? Now more than ever, the world desperately needs independent nonprofit journalism. With the media landscape rife with antagonism, spectacle, and fake news, Grist dives deep and brings important stories you just can’t find elsewhere.

Donate Now

Grist’s journalism is powered by readers like you. So, if you learned something valuable from Coal’s Last Gamble or any of the great work the team brought you this year, please consider making a gift!

As an added bonus, all new monthly donors will receive a limited-edition Grist steel pint glass to drink your political sorrows away toast to the progress we make toward a more sustainable, just future. Supplies are limited — get yours now.

Continue reading here: 

For the next 24 hours, Al Gore is treating us to celebs, interviews, and his favorite slideshows all about climate change.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on For the next 24 hours, Al Gore is treating us to celebs, interviews, and his favorite slideshows all about climate change.

Despite victory for Standing Rock Sioux, Energy Transfer Partners vows Dakota Access Pipeline will go on.

Grist sent former fellow Melissa Cronin aboard a four-seat prop plane to the tiny village of Tyonek, Alaska, this summer. Her on-the-ground investigation helped expose a Texas energy company’s plans to develop a coal mine across wetlands and forest that are extremely valuable to the local indigenous people.

Through her dogged reporting, Melissa published Coal’s Last Gamble — the type of fearless journalism we are proud to produce. If you missed the story, check it out here.

As part of our annual winter fund drive, we’re highlighting the stories of 2016 that defined our year. Why? Now more than ever, the world desperately needs independent nonprofit journalism. With the media landscape rife with antagonism, spectacle, and fake news, Grist dives deep and brings important stories you just can’t find elsewhere.

Donate Now

Grist’s journalism is powered by readers like you. So, if you learned something valuable from Coal’s Last Gamble or any of the great work the team brought you this year, please consider making a gift!

As an added bonus, all new monthly donors will receive a limited-edition Grist steel pint glass to drink your political sorrows away toast to the progress we make toward a more sustainable, just future. Supplies are limited — get yours now.

Original article – 

Despite victory for Standing Rock Sioux, Energy Transfer Partners vows Dakota Access Pipeline will go on.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Despite victory for Standing Rock Sioux, Energy Transfer Partners vows Dakota Access Pipeline will go on.

Cow burps are a big problem for the climate, but a little change in diet could correct that.

In a report out Thursday, the United Nations Environment Programme says pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists make up nearly half of the 1.3 million people killed worldwide in traffic accidents each year. Even more alarming, it says that about “140 people will die in road accidents while you read this report.”

The fix? The UNEP calls for countries to use at least 20 percent of their transit budgets for bike lanes and safe sidewalks to encourage walking and biking over driving.

Life is especially dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists in countries with weaker economies. Governments in Malawi, Kenya, and South Africa (the most dangerous countries, according to the report) simply have less money to spend on the type of shiny, protected bike lanes you see popping up in Portland, Washington, D.C., and in bike-friendly cities across Europe.

All this suggests some topics for conversation at the upcoming COP22 in Morocco, such as adaptation and how to pay for it. While rich countries like the United States pull out the stops with flashy bike corrals, countries most at risk from climate change don’t necessarily have enough funds to adapt to a warming world.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s 2017 budget is $98.1 billion. Malawi’s total 2016/2017 budget? About $1.65 billion.

Continued here: 

Cow burps are a big problem for the climate, but a little change in diet could correct that.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ringer, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cow burps are a big problem for the climate, but a little change in diet could correct that.

What Exactly Is in Dishwasher Detergent?

Have you ever wondered how the chemicals in your dishwasher detergent can scrape off the nastiest grime without any scrubbing? Most detergents have special ingredients to work their magic, but many of these ingredients can be harmful to humans and aquatic life. Heres a closer look at what youre putting in your dishwasher.

How Dishwasher Detergent Works

A detergent has certain requirements to work properly in automatic dishwashers. One key factor is that it must not produce any foam or suds. These can inhibit the washing action. The detergent must also do the following:

Reduce the surface tension of water.
Tie up minerals in the water.
Emulsify grease and oil.
Allow water to sheet off surfaces to minimize water spots.
Protect metals from the corrosive effects of heat and water.

Typically, detergents use a mixture of synthetic chemicals and additives to accomplish all these functions.

Detergent Ingredients

The chemicals and additives used in most commercial dishwasher detergents typically fall into the following categories.

Alkaline builders. Soften hard water by combining with minerals, mostly calcium and magnesium. When minerals are kept in solution, they will not leave spots or film on the dishes. Builders are typically 90-95 percent of the volume of a dishwasher detergent.

Phosphates are a commonly used builder. They are known to pollute lakes and rivers, creating algae blooms that starve fish of oxygen. For this reason, the use of phosphates in dishwasher detergent has been banned in some U.S. states.

Surfactants. Lower the surface tension of water. This allows water to evenly spread over surfaces and seep into food residue more effectively in order to break it up.

Surfactants only make up 1-5 percent of a detergent. The types used in dishwasher detergent are considered fairly non-toxic, although some surfactants are associated with skin irritation and possible respiratory symptoms.

Corrosion inhibitors. Prevent rust and protect machine parts, metal utensils and other metal ware.

Many of these inhibitors are actually corrosive themselves. For instance, inhaling sodium silicate, a common inhibitor, can lead to severe irritation of the upper respiratory tract. It can also burn parts of the digestive system if swallowed, or burn skin on contact.

Chlorine compounds and bleaching agents. Sanitize dishes and break down proteins like eggs or milk. Also remove stains and reduce spotting of glassware.

These agents are often very poisonous. Due to the high concentration of chlorine in detergents, it has become the number one cause of household poisoning. Chlorine and bleaching agents are often what you smell when the dishwasher is working, and the fumes alone can cause respiratory problems.

Perfumes. Cover the chemical smell of the other ingredients and any stinky food residue on the dishes.

Over 3,000 chemicals are used to make perfume and fragrance mixtures. Some of these chemicals have been linked to dermatitis, allergies and respiratory issues.

Alkaline salts and oxidizing agents. Break down acids, grease and oil.

Many of these agents can be very corrosive if inhaled, touched or ingested.

Enzymes. Break down starches and proteins in food residue.

Enzyme preparations can be strong eye irritants, so its important to make sure you never splash or get any dishwasher detergent in your eyes.

Safer Options

Most of the chemical ingredients in dishwasher detergent will leave small amounts of residue on your dishes. This means youre eating tiny amounts with every meal.

Thankfully, healthier options for dishwasher detergent are available. In their Guide to Healthy Cleaning, the Environmental Working Group evaluates many commercial cleaning products available today.

They recently evaluated 105 dishwasher detergents. Out of these, a mere 12 received an A rating, which means they are considered relatively safe for human and environmental health. The top 12 are listed on their website.

Many recipes are also available for home-made dishwasher detergent. The effectiveness of these can vary depending on the type of water in your home and your individual dishwasher. If youre going to try a new recipe for detergent, its best to experiment with a small batch at first to see how it works.

Related
6 Mistakes Youre Probably Making With Your Dishwasher
27 Dishwasher Maintenance Tips to Maximize Performance
E-Cigarettes Are Definitely Not as Safe as You Think

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

See original:

What Exactly Is in Dishwasher Detergent?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, PUR, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Exactly Is in Dishwasher Detergent?

Here’s Donald Trump’s Cell Phone Number

Mother Jones

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

Two weeks after publicly releasing a Republican presidential rival’s cell phone number, Donald Trump got his comeuppance on Monday.

Gawker’s Sam Biddle published Trump’s phone number in a story, responding to Trump’s public reading of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone number during a campaign speech in South Carolina on July 21. Biddle argued that the release of Graham’s number was important to maintaining open and direct channels of communication between voters and candidates, and felt that Trump should be held to a similar standard.

But before you pull out your own phone and start dialing, remember that the billionaire is hardly the type to limit himself to a single number.

“It’s a very old number,” a Trump campaign spokesperson told Mother Jones. “This is not one he uses. Mr. Trump has several numbers so he has not experienced any issues.”

It remains to be seen which pyrotechnic method Trump will use to destroy his outed phone in response.

Read original article:  

Here’s Donald Trump’s Cell Phone Number

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Donald Trump’s Cell Phone Number

Europe’s plastic bag rule is a breath of fresh air

Europe’s plastic bag rule is a breath of fresh air

By on 24 Nov 2014commentsShare

Plastic bags are the worst. They’re made of oil, they’re filling up the oceans, they’re showing up in sea turtles, they’re killing birds and plankton, too, and they’re even threatening human health, as plastic works its way up the food chain to the top predator: us.

That’s why the European Union worked so hard on a new compromise aimed at cutting Europe’s throwaway plastic bag use by 80 percent over the next decade. E.U. governments unanimously approved the measure last Friday, reports Newsweek.

Yes, that’s right. Political actors from states like Denmark, where folks use four lightweight plastic bags per year, on average, found a happy medium with the likes of Portugal, whose residents go through them at 100 times that rate, and all sides agreed to the deal because the ecological damage is too great to ignore. Having lived scarcely two decades, I can’t remember anything quite like this multinational legislation.

The original proposal’s outright ban on so-called oxodegradable bags was downgraded to appease the U.K., a country that remains displeased with the binding elements of the agreement. The Guardian explains the ratified deal:

Under the new proposal, EU states can opt for mandatory pricing of bags by 2019, or binding targets to reduce the number of plastic bags used annually per person from 191 now to 90 by 2019 and 40 in 2025. Measures such as bag taxes could also be considered as equivalent.

Even as communities around the world do their damnedest to oust this ubiquitous symbol of modern consumerism, Big Plastic will try anything to keep us addicted to the convenient, single-use totes: Slap on misleading labels, dub them reusable to get around bans, and, of course, put nearly every product, even fruits and veggies at many stores, into its own plastic bag called packaging. Despite the countermovement, we use more than a million plastic bags every minute worldwide, each one for an average of 15 minutes.

What to do about this oceanic mess? Involving a higher authority like the E.U. sounds like an alright complement to the proliferating small-scale measures to sack the sack.

Celebrate the progress, but beware of complacency. In terms of environmental impact, the type of bag we use is far less important than what we put inside it (or don’t).

As for the new rule, my question is (as always): Does it apply to produce bags or only at the checkout line?

Source:
EU Government Approves Law to Curb Plastic Bag Use

, Newsweek.

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

See the original article here:  

Europe’s plastic bag rule is a breath of fresh air

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, oven, OXO, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Europe’s plastic bag rule is a breath of fresh air