http://thenewstalkers.com/feed/group_discuss Mon, 09 Nov 2026 14:58:54 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/4932/kansas-legislature-lets-down-public-on-regulations http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/4932
 That is a famous quote from Drew Edmondson, the former Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma who sued Tyson for polluting the scenic rivers of eastern Oklahoma. Tyson responded by helping to elect an attorney general and a governor who were less concerned about regulations and pollution. Tyson now wants to expand their business into Kansas, and the Kansas Legislators seems amenable to "letting them".
 The Kansas Legislature recently passed HB 405, which changes the animal conversion rate ( i.e., the number of chickens whose manure weight equals that from one cow) from 0.008, the previous value, to 0.003. That small change has big consequences. The result is that now a chicken farm may house 330,000 chickens, and it may be placed within 1/4 of a mile of neighboring houses and within 100 feet of neighboring property lines.
 Some Legislators were unconcerned about the effect on property rights. Representative John Whitmer, who voted for the bill, justified his vote by saying, “local councils and county governments will still have to change current zoning and planning maps.” That may not be the case. The September KC Business Journal suggested that some Tonganoxie residents think Tyson “may have reason to believe they can declare their operation an agricultural rather than an industrial use to avoid rezoning."
Also, 51 counties have no zoning laws. SB 405 needed an amendment for home rule, where county residents could have the right to file petitions against industrial-agricultural chicken barns and have a county-wide vote. That amendment failed. Apparently, our Legislators are for local rule and property rights when they ask for our vote, but not when they pass legislation.
This was published in the Kansas Times Sentinel on April 5, 2018.
]]> Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:39:24 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/4931/bipartisan-carbon-fee-and-dividend-would-brighten-future-for-generations http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/4931

This is an Op Ed article for Earth Day published in the Wichita Eagle. April 19, 2018 04:03 AM
BY DARREL HART AND AND JC MOORE
 
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have enjoyed the benefits of fossil fuels. Today, we understand that there are health, environmental, and economic costs associated with fossil fuel use.
The growing burden of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), is changing our climate and increasing the risk of catastrophic climate events. We want our children and grandchildren to have clean air, safe drinking water, and a healthy environment as we did. To do that, we need to cut our fossil fuel use and shift to renewable energy sources in a way that does not damage our economy.
Wanting to help make this a reality, a group of Wichita citizens formed a chapter of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby. We are a bi-partisan, non-profit organization working to build relationships with members of Congress. We work to build the political will for Congress to pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions and create job opportunities in renewable energy.
CCL supports the carbon fee and dividend proposal as co-authored by Secretary George Shultz, Republican statesman and secretary of State, Labor, and Treasury. The proposal would collect a fee on carbon at the point it enters the economy, initially at $15 per ton of CO2.
 
A border adjustment protects American workers, businesses and agriculture. The carbon fee is not a tax as it would be rebated 100 percent to American households.
The fee will initially increase the price of gasoline about 9 cents per gallon in the first year and about 6 cents each succeeding year. Other fuels will see a similar price increase. Rising energy costs will be offset by the carbon dividend which, for a family of four, will be about $30 per month the first year and grow to over $200 per month after 10 years.
People who reduce their fossil fuel use, or choose renewable energy, will be able to increase their disposable income by saving more of their dividend. The monthly dividend check will also remind every family that they have a stake in reducing carbon emissions.
To see the effect of the carbon fee and dividend on the economy, CCL commissioned a research study by the nonpartisan Regional Economic Models. The study found that the carbon fee and dividend approach would reduce the carbon emissions to 50 percent of the 1990 levels in just 20 years. During that time, it would add 2.1 million jobs to the American economy, increase the gross domestic product by $75 billion, and save 220,000 lives by reducing lung and heart diseases.
We have confidence in our work because we see progress. Seventy-two members of Congress (36 Republicans and 36 Democrats) now sit on the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus we promote. This caucus explores policy options that address the challenges of our changing climate.
There you have it. CCL’s carbon fee and dividend proposal will allow us to avoid the cost and risks of climate change. It provides the certainty needed for long-range planning and lets consumers and markets determine winners and losers, not regulators. It sends a market signal to entrepreneurs that there is profit in adopting energy-saving technologies and offering innovative energy-saving or low carbon products. And it assures our children and grandchildren will have clean air, pure water, and a healthy environment.
Darrel Hart and JC Moore are with the Wichita chapter of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
]]> Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:29:23 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/4886/please-nominate-your-candidates-for-the-2017-environmental-hall-of-fame-shame-awards http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/4886




Last year, 2017, saw some real heroes and villains with respect to the environment. It is important that we recognize those who most affected the environment, for good or ill, by their words or actions.





Each year, this site takes a poll to find those most deserving to be in the Environmental Hall of Fame or the Environmental Hall of Shame. Please post your nominations  for  each category in the comment section. If you would like, please include a short reason that your nominee should be chosen and suggest a suitable gift if they win.
Nominations  will be taken until May 15, 2018. The nominees will then be  listed  and this site will conduct a poll to determine the winner in each category.  You may suggest a suitable prize for your nominee. Please be imaginative, as particularly thoughtful or humorous  nominations will  be recognized and published on this site.
(c) 2018 J.C. Moore




]]> Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:49:57 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/4885/a-tribute-to-stephen-hawking http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/4885




In the wake of Stephen Hawking’s death, many are remembering him for his renowned intellect and his great accomplishments. Diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, which few survive more than a few years, he lived to the   age of 76. Though he became increasingly paralyzed and was confined to a wheelchair for much of his life, he explored the universe with his mind and imagination. Though he had great difficulty communicating, he wrote dozens of scientific papers, gave hundreds of lectures, and wrote   A Short History of Time , one of the most popular books of this century. Though his book was understandable by nonscientists, many of Hawking’s theories on the nature of the universe, black holes, and time are understood only by our greatest theoretical physicists.
Stephen Hawking stands among the great scientists, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Madame Curie, and Einstein. Aristotle gave us a stable universe governed by the laws of nature, which could be understood by observation and reason. Galileo showed that when there was a conflict between science and religious dogma, we should follow science. Though theologians insisted that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System, Galileo  showed with scientific evidence that God made the Solar System with the Sun at the center. Newton discovered the force that held the planets in place and the laws that describe motion. Madame Curie developed  our understanding of radioactive elements, nuclear radiation, and x-rays.
Einstein showed that matter could be converted to energy, and he developed the interrelation between mass, time,  and distance. Einstein may have also save democracy. Though he was a pacifist, he realized the dangers of letting Nazi Germany be first to develop atomic weapons, and he convinced Roosevelt that we should do it first. Stephen Hawking also applied his great mind and his heart to man’s condition. If we’re going to honor him as one of the world’s greatest minds, then we should to pay attention to the lessons and values he spoke about during his time on this planet   as noted by Care2Causes :
Climate Change:   In Hawking’s later years, no topic seemed to stir him more than  climate change . “We’re close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” he said. “The solutions are already known…  We must counter corporate greed and corrupt politicians  NOW  to give humanity a fighting chance.”
Public Health Care:   Diagnosed with motor neurone disease, few survive as long as Hawking did. He credits his longevity to the  NHS  (National Health Service) in the UK for giving him the care that would have been unaffordable in systems like those that exist in the United States.
Feminism:   “I have always supported women’s rights,”  said Hawking  in an interview. When asked whether science had dictated his outlook on gender equality, he argued that it’s not a matter of science but “general acceptance that women are at least the equals of men.”
Assisted Suicide:   Though Hawking seriously considered ending his own life in his young years, he ultimately decided to hold on. Still, that doesn’t mean it made him opposed to  euthanasia   altogether. He recognizes it as an important option to those who are at the end of their lives.
American Politics:   Asked if his brilliant mind could explain how Donald Trump could ever get elected to lead the free world, he simply said, “I can’t.” Some things just defy logic.
American Politics:   Asked if his brilliant mind could explain how Donald Trump could ever get elected to lead the free world, he simply said, “I can’t.” Some things just defy logic.
Nuclear War:   Hawking considers nuclear weapons one of the biggest threats to the survival of the human race. “Technology has advanced at such a pace that this aggression may destroy us all by nuclear or biological war,”  Hawking warned .
Scientific Funding and Advancement:   It’s not surprising that a scientist would  advocate for better scientific funding or to utilize research in public policy .  The future is uncertain, and the best we can do is to gather as much information as we can to best face the challenges of tomorrow.
Though our leaders once based their decisions upon science and evidence, there is a disturbing trend now among our politicians to ignore science. Stephen Hawking believes that if the human race is to survive and prosper, we must base our political decisions on science and reason. He gives us a way to proceed, not only in science, but in national policies. We should honor his ideas.
(C) 2018 J.C. Moore
]]> Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:39:41 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/4048/westar-energys-proposal-to-increase-rates-on-solar-customers http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/4048
 

 

By  Que2646



Tue May 16, 2017 7:39 PM





environment
renewable-energy
fossil-fuels
carbon-emissions
air-pollution
greenhouse-effect
heavy-metals
rate-increase
westar-energy
particulates













Westar Energy is proposing a rate increase for customers who install solar panels or other distributive energy sources. Those Net Energy Metering (NEM) customers would have to choose between an additional $50 a month energy charge, or a $15 fixed fee plus a per-kilowatt rate demand charge based on the previous month’s maximum usage. If approved, Westar’s rate proposal will increase the payback time for installing solar panels from 12 years to more than 20 years, greatly discouraging solar installations.
As a Westar stockholder, I am opposed to additional fees or higher charges on Net Energy Metering customers. The NEM customers should be seen as a resource rather than a liability and should be encouraged. They should be treated just as any other customer when they draw energy from the grid, and just as any other supplier for the net energy they produce. Does it really matter if Westar buys energy from NEM customers or from the Southwest power pool?
Westar’s website  says it will “support public policies and initiatives to accelerate the development and use of environmentally beneficial and cost effective strategies for energy efficiency programs for both customers and Westar's own operations, zero - or low - emissions generation technologies, and renewable energy resources.”  That is a good policy, but this proposal is inconsistent with it.
One of the biggest future costs to Westar would be to build additional power plants, so Westar encourages energy conservation.  If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing more insulation and storm windows, I am applauded for following Westar’s conservation guidelines. If I cut my electricity usage by 50% by installing solar panels, I would be charged a higher electric rate. That is irrational, as NEM customers would help reduce the need for new power plants just as energy conservation does.
Westar should not be concerned about losing revenue from solar customers. Residential customers pay a customer fee, an electricity fee, a fuel charge, a distribution fee, an environmental fee, an energy efficiency charge, and even Westar’s property taxes. Last June, our bill was $24.95 for electricity, but our total bill came out to be $53.27 after the fees were added. NEM customers will pay less for energy charges, but will still pay the other fees. If Westar makes it too expensive, then potential NEM customers may install extra battery  capacity such as a Powerwall, and withdraw from the grid entirely.
Distributive generation should be seen as a resource. Westar has been proactive in developing wind and solar energy and now gets 51% of its energy from noncarbon sources. In the future, Westar will need to replace some of its coal power plants and may need to reduce its use of natural gas to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. Distributed generation would help replace the energy they produce without requiring capital investment from Westar.






NEM customers will help reduce pollution and environmental degradation. Westar has three coal-fired power plants which operate without scrubbers. Those plants should be phased out immediately and Westar should begin phasing out its other coal-fired power plants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Though natural gas is cheap now, that may not be true in the future. There is a link between fracking and earthquakes, and fracking activities are being curtailed. This will lead to higher gas prices. Though natural gas produces 2 ½ times as much energy per mole of carbon dioxide produced, it has a global warming potential 82 times that of carbon dioxide. If even 4% of the natural gas used for energy is leaked during production and transportation, then any advantage of using it for fuel will be lost
Coal-fired power plants release mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,  particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Burning  coal releases millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaves several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants stay in the air and others eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. The heavy metals are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide released by coal combustion harm plants, produce acid rain, and increase the greenhouse gas concentrations. Switching to renewable energy would greatly reduce these pollutants and help preserve the environment for future generations.
Encouraging NEM will benefit Westar and its customers.  A study by Crossborder Energy in 2014 found NEM allows utilities to avoid costs of generation and fuel, maintenance and upgrade of transmission and distribution infrastructure, transmission losses (which account for 7% of losses), capacity purchases, and compliance with renewable energy standards. The study concluded,” The cost which utilities avoid when they accept NEM power exported to their grid shows that NEM does not produce a cost to nonparticipating ratepayers; instead it creates a small net benefit on average across the residential markets.” While it does cause power companies to have to adjust their loads accordingly, NEM reduces peak loads, transmission losses, and the need for new power plants.  In California, the study found NEM “delivers more than $92 million in annual benefits to non-solar customers”.
Similar research studies in Vermont, New York, California, Texas, and Nevada also concluded that net metering provided a net positive benefit for utility companies and their customers. A 2015 study done in Missouri is relevant to Kansas. A cost-benefit study of net metering in Missouri arrived at the same conclusion as the other studies, “ Net metering provides a net benefit. “ Missouri has 6000 net metering customers while Westar now has approximately 300. Westar certainly should encourage more.
This proposal to impose a fee or higher rates on NEM customers is the result of short-term thinking. It will harm Westar and its stakeholders in the long run. Investing in clean energy protects the environment, reduces deaths and disease from air pollution, and creates good, local jobs. Westar  must develop policies to encourage the development of renewable energy investments and energy conservation. Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources, but we must be proactive in developing our renewable energy resources as quickly as possible.
(c) 2017 Que




]]> Tue, 16 May 2017 20:47:52 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3814/scott-pruitts-climate-denial-shines-thru-his-senate-answers http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3814
 
David Doniger   Director, NRDC Climate and Clean Air Program



Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s nominee to run  the Environmental Protection Agency, gave  evasive answers  to hundreds of questions from Senators trying to evaluate his fitness to for the office. On most questions the Environment and Public Works Committee’s ranking Democrat, Senator Tom Carper,  said  “Pruitt’s answers give us no substance.”


 



But despite Pruitt’s evasiveness, his true colors shine through in important ways.   My colleague John Walke has analyzed Pruitt’s deficient answers on public health standards and conflicts of interest in  this post . 

Here I look at Pruitt’s revealing answers on climate science. They show his penchant for “alternative facts” over mainstream climate science—specifically, his embrace of thoroughly discredited pseudo-science from the climate denial corners that Pruitt has long inhabited.  Scott Pruitt’s fringe views on climate change are disqualifying.
Pruitt’s Active Denial on Climate Science
Pruitt’s principal rote responses to climate science questions allow that the climate is changing but waffle on the significance, the causes, and appropriate remedies. At least five times, Pruitt says this, or words substantially the same:
The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.
At least seven times, Pruitt referred to need to continue assessing “the ever-evolving understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate.”

These bland words might have been excusable from an EPA nominee three or four decades ago, but today’s scientific understanding of the impacts, causes, and remedies to climate change is, in fact, far more definitive. 

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley put Pruitt to the test with questions drawn straight from the  most recent report  of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative international scientific body chartered by governments worldwide to assess the causes and responses to climate change. The specific scientific questions Merkley asked—and Pruitt refused to answer—are worth quoting: 




Below is a list of statements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. For each statement, please indicate your agreement or disagreement and explain your reasoning:

• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”


• “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”
• “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.”
• “Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions.”
• “The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.”
• “The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.”
• “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
• “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.”
• “It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.”
• “Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century.... [T]he rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.”
• “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Pruitt ignored Merkley’s request to respond to each IPCC statement. Instead, Pruitt gave only this evasive but revealing answer:
There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing climate among scientists. I believe that these differences should be the subject of robust and open debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage an honest debate on our changing climate, the role of human activity, our ability to measure the degree and extent of human activity, and what to do about it.
In other words, Scott Pruitt rejects the international scientific consensus, and signals that he will seek out the “diverse” views of fringe climate deniers.  He makes this even clearer in his next answer, disputing the clear trend of warming measured over the last three decades:
I am aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures, including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the “hiatus.” I am also aware that the discrepancy between land-based temperature stations and satellite temperature stations can be attributed to expansive urbanization within in our country where artificial substances such as asphalt can interfere with the accuracy of land-based temperature stations and that the agencies charged with keeping the data do not accurately account for this type of interference. I am also aware that ‘warmest year ever’ claims from NASA and NOAA are based on minimal temperature differences that fall within the margin of error. Finally, I am aware that temperatures have been changing for millions of years that predate the relatively short modern record keeping efforts that began in 1880.
These sentences reveal Pruitt’s embrace of discredited “alternative facts.” NOAA scientists recently put the  last nail in the coffin  of the false claim of a warming “hiatus.” Scientists have also long since  resolved  the alleged discrepancy between land- and satellite-based temperature measurements—even John Christy, the scientist who originally raised the question  now agrees  that the two sources of data are consistent and both show a clear warming trend. And  NASA’s and NOAA’s “warmest year ever” conclusions  are, in fact, solid and robust and are  backed up  by the British Meteorological Office, the World Meteorological Organizations, and other scientific authorities. 

Pruitt’s last sentence is especially interesting. Temperatures  have  indeed changed over millions of years. Far from a reason to relax, that should be a cause of great concern, because it shows the climate is sensitive to forcing factors, including changes in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Whatever the causes of changes in the levels of such gases in the past, it is industrial-age pollution that is driving the current rapid buildup of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases, and causing global temperatures to rise. 


Pruitt’s Long Opposition to EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”
Pruitt was a charter member of the anti-EPA coalition of state attorneys general, coal interests, and right-wing legal groups that sued to overturn the “ endangerment determination ,” the agency’s science-based finding, articulated in 2009 and strengthened several times since, that rising atmospheric levels of CO2 and five other heat-trapping air pollutants endanger public and welfare. 

Pruitt and his allies launched a barrage of challenges, including bogus scientific contentions resembling the ones he provided above. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, however, forcefully rejected those claims, upholding the endangerment finding in  Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA  in 2012 .  Pruitt’s coalition appealed to Supreme Court, but the high court saw nothing in the endangerment ruling worthy of review. 

This was no academic squabble about a scientific finding.  As a legal matter, the endangerment determination requires EPA to follow up with action under the Clean Air Act to curb emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the landmark 2007 decision,  Massachusetts v. EPA .  If Pruitt had succeeded in his challenge to the finding, however, EPA would not have been obligated to act. Thankfully, he failed.

Alarmingly, however, Pruitt’s Senate answers leave the door open to  revoke  the endangerment determination once he is confirmed. Asked several times whether he will commit not to tamper with that finding, Pruitt carefully responded:


To my knowledge, there is nothing currently pending before the EPA that would require I take any additional actions on the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases and if there were, it would not be wise to prejudge the outcome.
Watch out. Put his answers together, and Pruitt is virtually  inviting  a new petition to revoke the endangerment finding based on fringe science like what he included in his Senate answers. He’ll enforce EPA’s finding, he promises, unless he changes it.
  Pruitt’s Fringe Views on Climate Science Are Disqualifying  
Scott Pruitt’s unwillingness to accept and affirm the basic tenets of climate science, and his eagerness to embrace the fringe, discredited views of climate denialists, are disqualifying. He simply cannot be trusted to carry out his obligations under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from the dangerous pollution that’s driving climate change.  

[ Link to original article ]


]]> Wed, 01 Feb 2017 02:33:40 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3470/we-must-switch-to-renewable-energy http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3470




environment
global-warming
renewable-energy
air-pollution
droughts
health-concerns
jobs-growth
particulates




















 We must switch to renewable energy for health reasons, economic reasons, and environmental reasons.
Health reasons:  The American Lung Association estimates that there are 26,000 deaths and 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma caused by small particulates, much of it emitted from coal-fired power plants and from coal ash disposal. They estimate the economic benefits of reduced exposure to particulates alone could reach as much as $281 billion annually. Recently, fine particles have been implicated as a cause of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease and new research has revealed a  troubling link  between mental illness and air pollution that seems to particularly effect children.
Economic reasons:  Besides reducing health care costs, a switch to renewable energy will help keep our future electric rates low. Wind and solar are falling in cost and are now competitive with energy from coal-fired power plants. Recently AEP/PSO in Oklahoma purchased 800 MW of wind energy saying the cost was now less than building new coal fired plants, and that the purchase will save an estimated $53 million in the first year and even more thereafter. Kansas currently has 27,000 jobs in the clean energy sector. Of those jobs 75% are in wind energy, and are growing at a rate of 2.3% per year.  By the end of 2016, 32% of Westar’s retail electricity will come from the wind.
Environmental reasons:  Coal is 65 to 95 % carbon. What about the rest? Burning coal releases  mercury , chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide,  particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Burning  coal releases millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaves several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants stay in the air and others eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide released by coal combustion harm plants, produce acid rain, and increase the greenhouse gas concentrations. Switching to renewable energy would greatly reduce these  pollutants and help preserve the environment for future generations.
Summary:  Investing in clean energy protects the environment, reduces death and disease from air pollution, and creates good, local jobs. We must develop policies to encourage the development of renewable energy investments and energy conservation. Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources, and we must be proactive in developing our renewable energy resources.
(c) 2016 Que




]]> Tue, 26 Jul 2016 06:16:01 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3463/missouri-plans-to-build-solar-panels-into-road-along-old-route-66 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3463
  by   PAUL A. EISENSTEIN
One of the most famous roads from America's past could help set the stage for the highway of the future, at least if a project launched by the Missouri Department of Transportation pans out.
MoDOT, as its locally known, plans to become the first public highway department to test out a new type of pavement that not only replaces conventional concrete and asphalt but that also can generate electricity through built-in solar panels. The technology was developed by an Idaho-based start-up called Solar Roadways.
"If the solar roadway concept proves to be feasible, it creates electricity and could be the first road in history to ever pay for itself," said Tom Blair, the team leader on Missouri's Road to Tomorrow initiative, which was created two years ago to find ways to increase the state's investment in its roadway infrastructure without raising taxes.
Read More: Getting Their Modern-Day Kicks on Old Route 66
Solar Roadways, founded by husband-and-wife entrepreneurs Julie and Scott Brusaw, has developed a hexagonal block of about 4.4 square feet made of tempered glass that is strong enough, they claim, to stand up to even the heaviest truck traffic. The glass blocks have a mu, or traction, similar to that of conventional asphalt.
But they each contain solar cells capable of generating up to 44 watts of current, "entirely dependent on the sunshine they receive," explained Julie Brusaw by e-mail.
The blocks also have built-in LED lights that can display lane markings bright enough to be seen in daylight — and which can be reprogrammed if there's a need to shift lanes, for example. The electric current can be diverted into the grid or power heating elements that, during the winter, would minimize snow and ice accumulation.
While final details are still in the works, MoDOT plans to have the first Solar Roadway blocks in place "before the first snow falls this year," said project leader Blair. Initially, the glass pavement will be used to replace most of the sidewalks at the Route 66 Welcome Center and Museum in Conway, Missouri. It's located where the original Mother Road, as the highway was known, has been supplanted by Interstate-44.

             Photo Courtesy of Solar Roadways / Photo Courtesy of Solar Roadways The energy the blocks create will be used to supplement power the center now gets off the grid, a process that will let MoDOT "directly measure what the payback would be in the real world," said Blair.
The next step will be to use the Solar Roadway blocks to replace the pavement at the welcome center and perhaps install them on a stretch of historic Route 66 nearby, added Blair, noting that rather than tapping the state's already over-stretched highway budget, the goal will be to apply for grants and seek additional funds through crowdsourcing.
The Brusaw's have used a similar approach to fund the development of the solar pavement, with the company receiving a series of grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation while also raising several million more through crowdsourcing.
The initial deployment at the Route 66 Welcome Center will cost about $100,000, according to Blair. The Brusaws declined to discuss the actual cost of each block, with Julie cautioning in her e-mail that, "This is just a pilot project, so mass production is not being used yet. If all goes well with the pilots, we hope to gear up for it in the next few months."
That could sharply drive down the cost, though the solar road blocks would still cost more than conventional concrete or asphalt. But the Road to Tomorrow initiative has concluded that if the technology works as promised, it would not only generate money by being wired into the grid, but might also help cut down the costs of highway maintenance. If the blocks can melt snow and ice, said Blair, they'd need to be plowed and salted less often, for one thing.
The MoDOT project is just one of several pilot programs Solar Roadways hopes to participate in. It expects to soon install some of its blocks on public roads near the company's headquarters in Sandpoint, Idaho. And it is working on deals, the founders say.
Noting that there are about 29,000 square miles of paved roads in the U.S., Scott Brusaw said he believes a significant chunk of the nation's growing energy demands could eventually be generated by switching to solar blocks. For those good at math, there are about 27.8 million square feet per square mile of road, equal to 6.32 million of the blocks.
At 44 watts, one square mile would be able to generate a maximum of about 278 megawatts — at least, theoretically. By comparison, U.S. nuclear plants produce anywhere from 479 megawatts to 3.8 gigawatts of power over a 24-hour period, according to the Energy Information Administration.
[ Link to original NBC article ]
]]> Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:11:37 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3412/fossil-fuel-subsidies-and-external-costs-the-true-cost-of-energy http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3412
The Wichita Eagle recently published an interesting   letter from Darrel Hart , president of the
Wichita chapter the Citizens Climate Lobby. He pointed out that the House energy and water development bill , as it stands, provides subsidies of $95 million for wind, $632 million for fossil fuel and $1 billion for nuclear.


The letter goes on, “Clearly when it comes to winning subsidies, wind falls short. Legislators favoring carbon-based fuel spin the idea that if wind were economical, it could compete without government help. Well, what does that say about fossil fuel? It has been receiving billions in subsidies for decades.
Lopsided subsidies and favored treatment reveal the intent to pick winners and losers. A better solution is carbon fee and dividend legislation that cuts greenhouse gas emissions and corrects the artificially low price of fossil fuel created by tax dollars rigging the system against clean energy. Let markets reveal the true price of energy, and it will be the consumer who chooses the winner.”


Mr. Hart certainly has a good point, as carbon fuels are not paying their true cost.  Besides the $632 million subsidies to fossil fuels, we are also providing an even greater subsidy by allowing them to release their waste products into the air without paying the external costs, i.e., the costs indirectly borne by society.
The external costs for fossil fuels include health and environmental damage from particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, chromium, mercury, arsenic, and carbon emissions. An EU funded research study,  Externalities of Energys  ,  found that including external costs would increase the cost of producing electricity from fossil fuels by 30% for natural gas to 90% for coal, if costs to the environment and to human health were included.
The carbon fee and dividend system Mr. Hart is recommending would put a fee on carbon at the source, which would require the fossil fuels to include their external costs.This would allow renewable energy sources to compete with fossil fuels on an even basis, and would greatly favor a switch to renewable energy.
(c) 2016 Que
 
 
Tags:  air pollution ,  carbon emissions ,  carbon fee and dividend ,  Citizens climate lobby ,  CO2 ,  Darrell Hart ,  external costs ,  fossil-fuels
]]> Wed, 04 May 2016 12:19:15 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3372/the-2015-environmental-hall-of-fame-and-hall-of-shame-winners http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3372
DISCUSS:  4   1












The picture at the right  reminds us of how beautiful, small, and finite the Earth is – and how important it is that we protect it. This contest was designed to honor those who work to protect the Earth and it people and condemn those who would damage those through their actions. The 2015 Environmental Hall of Fame and Hall of Shame contests were carried out on four websites and the votes were combined to determine those who have most affected the environment.
 
The 2015 Environmental Hall of Fame Winners are:
1.  (37% of vote)  Bill Nye  the science guy,  and Neil deGrasse Tyson  for their efforts at educating the public. Hearing them together on  Tyson’s Star Talk radio show  makes me think that they should have a prime time TV show. They are a riot together and certainly help people understand the science of global warming. Prize : A prime time TV show together.
  2.  (25%)  President Barack Obama , both for managing to thread the needle in Paris and for postponing the decision on Keystone XL until it was uneconomical and too late for anybody in Congress to want to do anything in a presidential election year. Pres. Obama managed to tie the US Paris agreement to a previous treaty to avoid a possible defeat in Congress if it needed their approval. Prize : An political chess set.
3.  (19%)  Representative Chris Gibson (R-NY)  for introducing  H. Res. 424 , a Republican Climate Resolution to address mitigating global warming. He, along with 12 Republican cosponsors, support  H. Res. 424 which states, “It is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment.” This is a very hopeful sign of progress along the road to bipartisan climate action. Prize: Enough political support to ward off Americans for Prosperity and other climate change deniers.
4.  (19%)  California Governor Jerry Brown  for his tireless efforts to make policies and laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the residents of CA  and the surrounding states from the worst impacts of global warming.  He has  signed pacts  to combat the planet’s warming with leaders from 13 countries including Mexico, China, North America, Japan, Israel and Peru. Reward: More support from the U.S. Congress.
Honorable Mention.  The “little old guy” from the retirement center seen several times a week, leaning on his cane to pick up stuff other people believe they couldn’t be bothered with.  (And does it while walking a dog). Award: Our thanks for being such a good example to us all.
 
Hall of Shame Recipients are: 
1.  ( 45%)  The dishonorable Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan and his sycophants  for not only  allowing the poisoning of Flint Michigan children  but also insisting that the healthcare professionals who brought this to their attention be dismissed and demeaned by Michigan Environmental officials. To save money, the state switched Flint’s water supply to that of the corrosive water of Flint River, which leached lead out of the city’s water pipes, affecting the resident’s health and causing lead poisoning in thousands of Flint’s children. Award: A lead pipe connection for their office water supply from the Flint River.
2.  ( 35% )  The 114th Congress of the United States  for their repeated acts, statements, and actions against climate science, scientist, and new clean energy technologies – and for being out of step with the American public who by a majority  in both parties support efforts to reduce CO2. An example would be Lamar Smith (R -TX) for trying to influence the  science findings at NOAA .  Award: A huge dearth of votes in the next election for those who oppose climate science.
3.   (10%)   Exxon/Mobil  for their continued climate denial and for sowing doubt about CO2’s role in global warming even though  their own scientists knew in 1980  that CO2 from fossil fuels was the cause.  Though their lying to the public is apparently not against the law, lying to their  stockholders is  , and several states are moving to sue them for damages. Award: Judgments against Exxon/Mobil like those against tobacco companies.
4.  ( 10%)  North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and the NC lawmakers  who tacked on a 61-page “business-friendly” measure to a 1-page technical bill – then rammed through the law without public input. It:


Gave polluters immunity from certain fines & penalties
Allows polluters to avoid full cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination
Permits polluters to self-report without enforcement or fines
Rolls back clean water and air protections


Rejects science  on sea level rise

Award: Nickname North Carolina the “Polluters Paradise” in their honor.
Note:   Senator James Inhofe,   the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,  was nominated so many times that he was awarded a Lifetime Membership in the Environmental Hall of Shame to give others a chance. He claims “climate change is the biggest hoax in history” and wrote a book about it ( reviewed here ). He is famous for comparing the EPA to a Gestapo bureaucracy, appearing at climate conferences as if he spoke for the US, and bringing snowballs onto the senate floor as if they proved climate change is a hoax. The person who nominated him for a Lifetime Award thought he should be barraged with snowballs for as long as it snows in Washington D.C..
(C) 2016 Que
global-warming
hall-of-fame
environment
exxon-mobil
climate-change
bill-nye
james-inhofe
hall-of-shame
neil-degrasse-tyson
pres-barack-obama
gov-jerry-brown
gov-rick-snyder
nc-gov-pat-mccrory-and-lawmakers
representative-chris-gibson
the-114th-congress





]]> Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:52:49 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3351/poll-vote-for-the-2015-hall-of-fame-and-hall-of-shame-candidates http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3351
Thanks  to those of you who submitted nominations. The four top candidates in each category have been selected from  those you nominated. Please help select the winners by voting for the nominee who you think has most affected the environment for good or ill.  If you will, please post a reason for your vote and a suggestion for suitable gifts for your favorite candidate. The most interesting and humorous gift suggestions will be acknowledged.
Voting will close and the winners announced on  March 30, 2016 . Please  put your choice as a comment below.
Hall of Fame Nominees
1.  Bill Nye , the science guy,  and Neil deGrasse Tyson  for their efforts at educating the public. Hearing them together on  Tyson's Star Talk radio show  makes me think that they should have a prime time TV show. They are a riot together and certainly help people understand global warming.
Prize : A prime time TV show together.
2.  Representative Chris Gibson (R-NY)  for introducing  H. Res. 424 , a Republican Climate Resolution to address mitigating global warming. He, along with 12 Republican cosponsors, support  H. Res. 424 which states, “It is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment.” This is a very hopeful sign of progress along the road to bipartisan climate action.
Suggested Prize: Enough support to ward off Americans for Prosperity and other climate change deniers.
3 . President Barack Obama , both for managing to thread the needle in Paris and for postponing the decision on Keystone XL until it was uneconomical and too late for anybody in Congress to want to do anything in a presidential election year. Pres. Obama managed to tie the US Paris agreement to a previous treaty to avoid a possible defeat in Congress if it needed their approval.
Prize : An political chess set.
4 . California Governor Jerry Brown  for his tireless efforts and laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect the residents of CA  and the surrounding states from the worst impacts of global warming.  He has  signed pacts  to combat the planet's warming with leaders from 13 countries including Mexico, China, North America, Japan, Israel and Peru.
Hoped for Reward: More support from the U.S. Congress.
 
Hall of Shame Nominees
1.  The dishonorable Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan and his sycophants  for not only  allowing the poisoning of Flint Michigan children  but also insisting that the healthcare professionals who brought this to their attention be dismissed and demeaned by Michigan Environmental officials. To save money, the state switched Flint's water supply to that of the corrosive water of Flint River, which leached lead out of the city's water pipes, affecting the resident's health and causing lead poisoning in thousands of Flint's children.
Award: Please suggest a suitable nonviolent award.
2.  The 114th Congress of the United States.  Reason: For their repeated acts and statements and actions against climate science, scientist, and new clean energy technologies, and for being out of step with the American public who  by a majority  in both parties support efforts to reduce CO2. An example would be Lamar Smith (R -TX) for trying to dictate the  science findings at NOAA .
Suggested Award: A huge dearth of votes in the next election for them all.
3.   Exxon/Mobil  for their continued climate denial and for sowing doubt about CO2's role in global warming even though  their own scientists knew in 1980  that CO2 from fossil fuels was the cause.  Though their lying to the public is apparently not against the law, lying to their  stockholders is  , and several states are moving to sue them for damages.
Prize: Judgments against Exxon/Mobil like those against tobacco companies.
 

4.  North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and the NC lawmakers  who tacked on a 61-page “business-friendly” measure to a 1-page technical bill - then rammed through the law without public input. It:


Gave polluters immunity from certain fines & penalties
Allows polluters to avoid full cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination
Permits polluters to self-report without enforcement or fines
Rolls back clean water and air protections

Rejects science  on sea level rise

Suggested Award: Nickname North Carolina the “Polluters Paradise”.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This poll was conducted on four internet sites. The  poll will close on March 30, 2015.
Please  put your choice for each category as a comment below.
(C) 2016 J.C. Moore
Note:   Senator James Inhofe,   the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,  has been nominated so many times that he is now being awarded a Lifetime Membership in the Environmental Hall of Shame to give others a chance. He claims “climate change is the biggest hoax in history” and wrote a book about it ( reviewed here ). He is famous for comparing the EPA to a Gestapo bureaucracy, appearing at climate conferences as if he spoke for the US, and bringing snowballs onto the senate floor as if they proved climate change is a hoax. The person who nominated him for a Lifetime Award thought he should be barraged with snowballs for as long as it snows in Washington D.C..
]]> Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:28:58 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3279/carbon-fee-and-dividend-how-much-fuel-produces-a-ton-of-carbon-dioxide http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3279
 
 





In Paris , 196 countries agreed to develop plans to reduce their carbon emissions in such a way as to keep global warming below 1.5°C.  Although each country will develop its own plan,  the best plan for the US, and many other countries, would be a  carbon fee and dividend system  such as that developed by the  Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), which has broad bipartisan support.  CCL’s proposal would place a fee on carbon at the source, and market forces would then encourage reduced emissions, energy conservation and investments in renewable energy.  The fee collected is not a tax as it would be distributed equally to every household as a monthly energy dividend.
CO2 emissions:  CCL’s legislative proposal  would set an initial fee on carbon at $15 per ton of CO2 emission or CO2 equivalent emissions with the fee increasing by $10 each year until the US emissions drop to 1990 levels. The main contributors to CO2 are combustion of coal, natural gas, and gasoline, with minor equivalent emissions coming from other industrial chemicals.  A little chemistry allows us to calculate the tons of CO2 that a ton of each fuel produces.
Coal:  It is hard to calculate coal’s contribution exactly as it has from 65% to 95% carbon and the rest is impurities. Those include mercury, cadmium, lead, manganese, selenium, sulfur, nitrogen, and some radioactive elements. Much of the environmental damage and many cases of lung disease can be traced to the impurities and to the mining of coal. For calculation purposes we will assume that coal is all carbon as graphite, but keep in mind that each source of coal is different.
The chemically equation for the reaction of carbon with oxygen is:
http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/co22--768x244.jpg 768w, http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/co22--1024x325.jpg 1024w, http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/co22-.jpg 1497w" alt="co22" width="400" height="127">
 
 
 
 
Carbon       +     Oxygen    =>        Carbon Dioxide
The mass of each atom or molecule in atomic mass units (MU) is written on the atom. The equation says that 12 mass units of carbon react with 32 mass units of oxygen to produce 44 mass units of carbon dioxide. The equation is like a recipe and once you establish the basic relationship, it can be scaled up to tons quite easily, i.e. :
C            +          O2               =>                 CO2
12 MU Carbon + 32 MU Oxygen  =>   44 MU Carbon Dioxide    – or –
12 Tons Carbon + 32 Tons Oxygen    =>  44 Tons Carbon Dioxide
Thus, each ton of carbon produces 3.6 tons of carbon dioxide.
Natural gas:  Natural gas is composed mostly of methane, CH 4 ,  with small impurities of other hydrocarbon gases. Following the method above:
http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Rx-768x203.jpg 768w, http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Rx-1024x271.jpg 1024w, http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Rx.jpg 1535w" alt="Rx" width="550" height="145">
 
 
 
 
 
CH 4             +         2O 2                 =>                 CO2                  +          2H2O
16 MU Methane + 64 MU Oxygen   =>  44 MU Carbon Dioxide  +36 MU of Water
16 Tons Methane + 64 Tons Oxygen    =>   44 tons Carbon Dioxide  +36 tons of Water
Each ton of methane produces 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide.
Gasoline:  Gasoline is composed of many volatile liquid compounds, but it can best be represented as octane, which has eight carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms, C 8 H 18 . (The model for Octane is large so here we will just work from the equation. )
C 8 H 18      +         25/2 O 2    =>        8CO2        +         9 H2O
114 AMU  Octane +   Oxygen  =>  352 AMU  Carbon Dioxide  +   Water
114 Tons Octane +   Oxygen  =>  44 tons Carbon Dioxide  +  Water
Each ton of octane produces 3.1 tons of carbon dioxide.
Note:  One gallon of gasoline is about 7 pounds and it produces about 21 pounds of CO2. That means that 95 gallons of gasoline will produce 1 ton of carbon dioxide. The $15 per ton carbon fee would increase the cost of 95 gallons of gas from about $200 to about $215, or about 7%.
Heat of Combustion:  Each fuel releases a different amount of energy when burned, measured in kilojoules  of energy per  mole of fuel burned. Those are listed below along with another important quantity, the amount of heat released per mole of carbon dioxide released.
http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Fuel.jpg 526w" alt="Fuel" width="526" height="105">
 
 
 
Note that Methane releases more than twice as much energy as coal for each mole of carbon dioxide produced. This was the impetus to convert coal-fired power plants to natural gas-fired plants. That would help in the short term as natural gas has fewer impurities and produces more energy per mole of CO2 released.  However, there is another factor to be considered which is the Global Warming Potential of each greenhouse gas.
Global Warming Potential (GWP ):   The amount that each greenhouse gas contributes to global warming depends upon its concentration in the atmosphere, it’s effectiveness at trapping heat, and its lifetime in the atmosphere. The focus is on carbon dioxide as it is the greenhouse gas whose concentration has increased the most by burning fossil fuels. Methane is very efficient at trapping heat and has a GWP 28 times that of CO2. Though methane’s concentration is low, it has more than doubled since pre-industrial times. There are other greenhouse gases which are more effective at trapping heat and have longer lifetimes, such as N2O, but their contributions are small because they have low or stable concentrations. Below is a table comparing those.  Source.
http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/co2-table.jpg 683w" alt="co2 table" width="683" height="109">
 
 
 
 
Although converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas might be advantageous in the short term, we should be concerned about methane’s volatile prices, the link between fracking and earthquakes, and its GWP. Large amounts of methane are lost from fracking operations, leaking gas wells, and pipeline leaks.  If even 4% of the methane produced is lost to leaks, then any advantage of converting to methane will be lost.  The EPA has taken steps to reduce methane loss to the air, but is a very  difficult thing to measure . One study found that  infrastructure leaks  in the Boston area accounted for about 2.6% of the methane transmitted. And methane, when burned, still ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. You can see from the table that the amount of methane in the air is growing, and rather than count on it for the future, we should focus on converting to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible.
(C) 2016  –  J.C. Moore
Note: Here is a model of octane for the curious:
http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/octane.jpg 322w" alt="octane" width="322" height="137">
 





 


]]> Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:18:31 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3228/james-taylor-edfs-top-10-global-warming-lies-or-not http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3228
 

global-warming environment





climate-change
james-taylor
forbes
antarctica
co2
glaciers
arctic-ice
alarmists
lies-about-lies















James Taylor has published an opinion piece in Forbes about the  Top 10 Global Warming Lies  put forward by “climate alarmists”. The climate alarmists are the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as they recently sent out a mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,”. The EDF’s  positions sound very much like the things you read in reputable news sources and peer-reviewed science articles, so it is hard to see them as lies. According to a search of Google Scholar, James M. Taylor has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals, but he has published numerous articles with the Heartland Institute. As one Forbes reader commented, “If you take the time to check Taylor’s linked references, you’ll find they are to his own articles, debunked papers, or to papers that don’t even support his conclusion or statement. It’s all smoke and mirrors!”
Smoke certainly. James Taylor once wrote articles for the Heartland Institute claiming that smoking and secondhand smoke were harmless. He has now turned his talents to writing articles that deny the effects of global warming. His work earned Forbes third place in the 2011 Environmental Hall of Shame contest. The award went to:  ”Forbes Magazine (James Taylor)  for a  ridiculously misleading article , New NASA data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism , that described climate scientists as “alarmist” 15 times.  Award : A copy of the book  Ethics And Journalism  and a complete ban on ever using the words ‘alarmist’ again.”
Apparently neither he nor the Forbes’ editors paid much attention to the book on ethics, or the ban on using the word “alarmist” . This article uses the word “alarmist” more times than you would care to count. Forbes does now require that Mr. Taylor put a disclaimer on his articles saying that they are his own opinion. James Taylor is a lawyer and his client is the Heartland Institute and the fossil fuel companies they represent. His job is not to enlighten you, but to cause doubt about whether his client is guilty. Scientists publish their work in peer-reviewed journals along with the data that backs up their conclusions. If Mr. Taylor thinks they make mistakes, it is up to him to provide evidence that refutes their work. However, he does not do that as he has little  evidence. Links in his article take you to other articles he has written which sometimes have a few references to blog sites or occasionally an article in a magazine which has not been peer-reviewed for its accuracy.  As one Forbes reader commented,  “This paid propaganda brought to you by the donors to the Heartburn Institute. Enjoy it with a pack of cigarettes.”
To avoid confusion, I have listed what Mr. Taylor calls EDF’s  Alarmist Assertions. This is followed by Mr. Taylor’s attempt to discount the EDF’s assertion, which is labeled  Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal  . This is then followed by  - Or Not  which compares Mr. Taylor’s rebuttals  to reliable sources and peer-reviewed literature. It may take two packs for you to get through all this – or, you may just jump to the topics that interest you.
Alarmist Assertion #1  “Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts  have become less frequent and less severe  as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.  … Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power –  kills nearly 1 million bats every year  (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone.
- Or Not:  Bat experts have noted that bats are very sensitive to high temperatures and Australia had its hottest summer on record in 2014. Research published in the  Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society  shows that global warming was responsible  for making 14 natural disasters more extreme, including the Australian heat wave. His claim that that wind turbines kills more than 1 million bats every year is irrelevant and not supported by reliable research. His reference leads to a previous article he has written which referenced a self-published magazine article whose author came up with that number by using estimates from unpublished sources. Try following his references and see where they lead.
Alarmist Assertion #2   “Lyme Disease Spreads” – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  Lyme Disease is  much more common  in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions…. Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is  aided and abetted by cold climate .
- Or Not:   This    Scientific American article  describes how the vectors for Lyme disease are growing in the northern regions of North America and declining in the South – more evidence for climate change. The flu comment is just a red herring as flu is a communicable illness spread from person-to-person when cold weather brings more people in contact.
Alarmist Assertion #3  “National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   The alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict.
- Or Not :    The Department of Defense’s  Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap    explains how our military leaders plan to address the reality of global warming.    CIA Director John Brennan offered a   candid assessment  of the security issues:


Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer. Extreme weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies, can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of the most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.


  A recent  New York Times article  explains that the drought   caused by global warming was a major factor in triggering the Syrian civil war.
  Alarmist Assertion #4  “Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:  The pace of sea level rise  remained relatively constant  throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose. Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively,  polar ice sheets have not declined at all  since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.
– Or Not:  Studies  have confirmed that more than 90% of the world’s glaciers are retreating and that Glacier National Park may become ice free in this century.   Also ,  note that Mr. Taylor does not claim that the sea levels have not risen, but that it is the  pace  of the sea level  rise  has remained constant,( i.e, the sea levels are most surely rising) .  The only reasonable explanations for this sea level rise are that the oceans are getting warmer and expanding – and that glaciers are melting and adding more water to the oceans.
Both the Antarctic and the Arctic are losing substantial amounts of ice. (See   #10 for an explanation about the Antarctic ice. ) As shown in the satellite pictures below,  the Arctic ice extent has declined about 35% in the last 30 years. You might wonder why Mr. Taylor would distort data which can be so easily checked . Apparently Forbes editors do not check such things.






 
  Alarmist Assertion #5   “Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. Indeed, NASA satellite instruments have documented a  spectacular greening of the Earth , with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions.
– Or Not:  Pollen producing weeds such as ragweed are experiencing longer growing seasons and extending their ranges further northward. This is further evidence of climate change. Keep your antihistamines handy.
  Alarmist Assertion #6  “Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by objective, real-world data.
– Or Not:  The extra generation of bark beetles each season has caused an exponential increase in their population causing  a plague of bark beetles  that in the last quarter-century has killed more than 30 billion pine and spruce trees from Alaska to New Mexico. Perhaps Mr. Taylor can explain why the plague of beetles started about the time winter temperatures began increasing in their range.
Alarmist Assertion #7  “Canada: The New America – ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life is a bad thing.
– Or Not:  Climate scientists point to this as further evidence that Canada’s climate is changing in response to global warming. It may be a bad thing for Canada, as much of the growth may be from invasive species.
Alarmist Assertion #8   “Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   Severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms.
– Or Not:  Mr. Taylor needs to check with the large secondary insurance company Munich Re, which  has a department which studies insurance losses from natural catastrophes. Their graph below shows that while losses from geophysical natural catastrophes ( in red ) have remained relatively constant  over the past 35 years – the climate related catastrophes have increased about 2 1/2 times. Coincidence?






 
                                                                    Permission Courtesy of Munich Re.
  Alarmist Assertion #9  “Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:    For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-20th century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world.
– Or Not:  The  World Health Organization reports that , “though global warming may bring some localized benefits, such as fewer winter deaths in temperate climates and increased food production in certain areas, the overall health effects of a changing climate are likely to be  overwhelmingly negative . ” Who should you believe, the World Health Organization or Mr.  Taylor? He claims that the real problem is that we are not using DDT anymore, but he is apparently not aware that insects built up a tolerance to it. Since he was quite concerned in #1  about wind turbines killing bats and birds, should he not be concerned that DDT almost wiped out many species of birds, including Eagles in North America?
Alarmist Assertion #10   “Shrinking Glaciers – In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.”
Mr. Taylor’s Rebuttal:   Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists.






– Or Not:    There are two processes occurring in Antarctica. The warmer oceans around Antarctica are causing more snow to fall on the mountains in East Antarctica, so the glaciers there are growing. The warmer oceans are also eroding the ice sheets in West
 
Antarctic ice mass from GRACE satellite data.
Antarctica, causing ice loss and huge icebergs to break off.  The   GRACE satellite data at the right shows that overall the mass of ice in Antarctica is declining.The extent (or area) of the Antarctic ice is irrelevant as the area of thin ice sheets grow and shrink with the seasons and the weather.
If glaciers are not melting and the oceans are not warming, then Mr. Taylor needs to explain what is causing the sea levels to rise.
 
 






Paris:  Mr. Taylor uses a word “alarmist” as a pejorative to discount what the scientists are saying, but it is one of the few things he has right. Climate scientists are very alarmed that the world is on a path to end civilization as we know it by 2100, and that he, Forbes, the Wall  Street Journal, Investor Business Daily, and our Congress is in denial. Here is what  will happen to the world  if we do not listen to the scientists and take binding action at the Paris Climate Conference. The graph at the right charts three paths, no action on carbon emissions, current commitments in red, and the path we need to be on if the world as we know it is to survive. Which path would you choose?




]]> Sun, 06 Dec 2015 20:08:41 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3191/the-public-does-not-support-suing-the-epa-over-clean-power-plan http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3191








The leaders of the Republican Party in 26 states plan to sue the EPA to stop the Clean Power Plan. Those same leaders often justify what they want to do by claiming it is what the people want. But in this case, they are doing more what the fossil fuel companies want. The public in 23 of the states does not support the lawsuits, as in the  chart  .
 The governors and attorney generals of the states listed want to make a name for themselves as “conservatives”, but it is a losing proposition for a number of reasons. The lawsuits do not actually represent a conservative position, as the EPA’s plan will lead to a shift to renewable energy which will keep billions of tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In that respect, the EPA has the more conservative position.
The reason often given for the lawsuits is saving money on energy, but the politicians seem more interested in campaign money than saving money for their citizens. The EPA’s plan may lead to increased electricity costs in the present, but will lead to lower electric rates in the future. Coal and transportation prices are certain to increase in the future while the cost of renewable energy is falling. It costs upfront to build wind turbines and solar installations but, once they are in place, they are expected to function for 30 years or longer without any need for fuel.
It will cost the states lots of money for the lawsuits, and their chances successes is slim.   And, it will likely harm a number of citizens of the states if the lawsuit succeeds. There are many coal burning power plants in the US which operate without scrubbers to remove particulates, because coal is cheap and  scrubbers are expensive. The  EPA projects  the Clean Power Plan’s  proposed guidelines for particulates alone could  prevent up to 3,600 deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days per year. As a result, for every dollar Americans spend on the Clean Power Plan, we will gain up to $4 worth of health benefits.
So in terms of future energy costs, environmental benefits, and health benefits the EPA Clean Power Plan is a winner for the citizens. Perhaps the Republican Attorney Generals clamoring to sue the EPA should reconsider.
(c) 2015 J.C. Moore
  air pollution ,  carbon emissions ,  Clean power plan ,  Climate Change ,  coal industry ,  EPA ,  particulates ,  republicans ,  state lawsuits


]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2015 18:29:13 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3186/newsflash-the-earths-temperature-is-still-going-up http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3186
 

 


environment
climate-change
global-warming
john-mccain
co2
noaa
george-will
congressman-lamar-smith
tom-karl








Conservative politicians and columnists like to say,”The Earth’s temperature hasn’t gone up since 1998″. That is certainly wrong, and creates doubts about them actually being “conservative”. Just a few weeks ago my Congressman said in a letter, “The Earth’s temperature hasn’t gone up since 1997″, stretching it a bit. That’s his excuse for not supporting action on climate change.




That untruth about the Earth’s temperature was  popularized by George Will  when he used it to attack John McCain during the 2008 election. George Will was apparently upset that a conservative Republican was recommending action on global warming. When I contacted George Will for an explanation, he said that 1998 was the warmest year on record and no year since had been hotter. Actually 2005 was, destroying his argument. There have been several warmers years since – as shown in the graph at the right. And so far, 2015 is setting a new record.
Not willing to give up on a good excuse, the politicians and pundits now claim the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed their deception. That’s not right, either. The  IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report   stated that the global surface temperature “has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years [1998-2012] than over the past 30 to 60 years.” The apparent slowdown was termed a “hiatus” and cheered by the Skeptics, although a “smaller increasing linear trend” is not a hiatus. And it turned out that the “smaller increasing linear trend” was caused by a change in the way the Earth’s temperature was measured, not by an actual decrease in the rate of warming.
Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information,  is the lead author of the   study published  in the journal  Science . He explained the discrepancy came from a change in how ocean temperatures were measured. “Global ocean temperatures are estimated both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines and by thousands of buoys. The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships’ engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common.”  The result, Karl says, is that the oceans did not appearing to be warming as much because more buoys are now being used instead of ships. So Karl’s team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. The corrected data,  shows that since 1998, the rate of warming is about the same as it has been since 1950: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade.
That should settle the matter but some politicians just are not willing to accept science  and, interestingly enough, one of them is the  chair of the Congressional Science Committee .  Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, has spent much of the last few years  pressuring  the National Science Foundation to ensure that it only funds science he thinks is worthwhile and “in the national interest.” He certainly didn’t think that Dr. Karl’s research,  showing the Earth’s temperature was still going up an alarming rate, was in the national interest. So, he sent a request that Dr. Karl and NOAA provide his office with “[a]ll data related to this study and the updated global datasets” along with the details of the analysis and “all documents and communications” related to part of that analysis.
The request was meant to be burdensome, but apparently Congressman Smith does not understand how science publications work. NOAA responded to Rep. Smith’s request by pointing him to the relevant data and methods, all of which had  already  been publicly  available . Undeterred, Representative Smith asked for even more data, explanations, and communications. NOAA did not respond to that request or the following subpoena, citing a “confidentiality interest”.   Committee Member Bernice Johnson (D – TX), intervened  with a  letter  sent to Rep. Smith revealing and criticizing his actions. In it, she noted that Rep. Smith was looking into a scientific study and not a Federal policy decision. “As such,” she wrote, “this is not an area of delegated legislative authority by Congress  (unless you are proposing that Congress should somehow legislatively overrule peer-reviewed scientific findings).” Of course that is what he would like to do, but he will likely have to content himself with just harassing Dr. Karl and NOAA.
(C) 2015 Que


]]> Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:04:13 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3181/snowball-throwing-climate-denying-senator-may-crash-paris-climate-talks http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3181
 

Seeded by  Que2646 VIEW ORIGINAL ARTICLE: | Care2 Causes

Seeded on Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:25 AM


 










 
At the Copenhagen climate conference, Sen. Inhofe was not allowed to speak and was ignored except by other climate deniers. He gave a speech to members of the Cornwall Alliance and the Heartland Institute, and then came home and collected large donations from the oil companies and "conservative" votes from his constituents. It looks like he's at it again:


Well that’s rich. As world leaders hammer out a historic deal to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change at the Paris climate conference (COP21) this December, they might find Congress’ most outspoken climate-denier in their midst: Snowball-throwing Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
“I don’t know if I’ll repeat what I’ve done several times before, which is to go over and be the bad guy, the one-man truth squad, and tell the truth, that they’re going to be lied to by the Obama administration,” Inhofe said.
In February, Inhofe subjected himself to widespread mockery when he tossed a snowball on the floor of the Senate, claiming he disproved global warming because it snowed.
 

environment
climate-change
global-warming
epa
fossil-fuels
particulates
sen-james-inhofe
the-greatest-hoax


 










]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2015 13:28:34 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/3170/the-paris-climate-conference-pope-francis-and-ceos-urge-action http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/3170
 

By  Que2646

 









On his world tour, Pope Francis called on world leaders to address climate change in November at the Paris Climate Conference. It is not just religious leaders and climate scientist who are concerned, but business leaders who are aware that climate change will hurt the world’s economy. A recent  study , published in the journal  Nature , found that temperature change due to unmitigated global warming will leave  global  GDP per capita 23% lower in 2100 than it would be without any warming.
Joining the call for action on climate change are companies such as Nike, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Salesforce, Starbucks, Steelcase, and Voya Financial, all who have adopted a goal of 100 %  renewable energy.  Food Companies are concerned that climate change is threatening our food supply. CEOs of Kellogg’s, Mars, Dannon, Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farms, and Nestlé have signed a letter urging US and global leaders to “meaningfully address the reality of climate change.”
By this week, 81 big-name corporations representing 9 million employees and $5 trillion in market capitalization have signed on to the President’s “Act on Climate” pledge.
 
THE AMERICAN BUSINESS “ACT ON CLIMATE PLEDGE”


 “We applaud the growing number of countries that have already set ambitious targets for climate action. In this context, we support the conclusion of a climate change agreement in Paris that takes a strong step forward toward a low-carbon, sustainable future.
We recognize that delaying action on climate change will be costly in economic and human terms, while accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy will produce multiple benefits with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment.”


 
The list of the corporations taking the pledge and a summary of their pledges are listed in this  White House fact sheet . Their pledges set ambitious, company-specific goals such as:


Reducing emissions by as much as 50 percent,
Reducing water usage by as much as 80 percent,
Achieving zero waste-to-landfill,
Purchasing 100 percent renewable energy, and
Pursuing zero net deforestation in supply chains.


Most importantly, these companies set an example to their peers who will be asked to sign onto the pledge before the Paris Conference.




The plan to reduce emissions with broad bipartisan support in the US is the carbon fee and dividend as proposed by the  Citizens’ Climate Lobby . Their proposal would place a fee on carbon at the source and allow market forces to encourage reduced emissions, energy conservation, and investments in renewable energy. The carbon fee is not a tax as proceeds would be distributed equally to every household as a monthly energy dividend. It would effectively stimulate the economy and add an estimated 2.8 million jobs over the next 20 years. What could be a better plan?
 
(c) 2015 Que
     environment
climate-change
global-warming
president-obama
fossil-fuels
carbon-emissions
air-pollution
pope-francis
ceos
citizens-climate-lobby
act-on-climate-pledge


]]> Fri, 23 Oct 2015 20:32:49 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1469/financier-plans-big-ad-campaign-on-climate-change http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1469 By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE A billionaire retired investor is forging plans to spend as much as $100 million during the 2014 election, seeking to pressure federal and state officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign of attack ads against governors and lawmakers. The donor, Tom Steyer, a Democrat who founded one of the worlds most successful hedge funds, burst onto the national political scene during last years elections, when he spent $11 million to help elect Terry McAuliffe governor of Virginia and millions more intervening in a Democratic congressional primary in Massachusetts. Now he is rallying other deep-pocketed donors, seeking to build a war chest that would make his political organization, NextGen Climate Action, among the largest outside groups in the country, similar in scale to the conservative political network overseen by Charles and David Koch.
Tom Steyer and David Koch Fortune Live Media / Reuters A championship matchup: On the left, Tom Steyer. On the right, David Koch.

In early February, Mr. Steyer gathered two dozen of the countrys leading liberal donors and environmental philanthropists to his 1,800-acre ranch in Pescadero, Calif. which raises prime grass-fed beef to ask them to join his efforts. People involved in the discussions say Mr. Steyer is seeking to raise $50 million from other donors to match $50 million of his own. The money would move through Mr. Steyers fast-growing, San Francisco-based political apparatus into select 2014 races. Targets include the governors race in Florida, where the incumbent, Rick Scott, a first-term Republican, has said he does not believe that science has established that climate change is man-made. Mr. Steyers group is also looking at the Senate race in Iowa, in the hope that a win for the Democratic candidate, Representative Bruce Braley, an outspoken proponent of measures to limit climate change, could help shape the 2016 presidential nominating contests. Mr. Steyer also prospected for potential donors on a recent trip to New York City, where he met with aides to former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has made championing climate change a focus of his post-mayoral political life, but whose own super PAC has focused chiefly on gun control. Our feeling on 2014 is, we want to do things that are both substantively important and will have legs after that, Mr. Steyer said in an interview. We dont want to go someplace, win and move on. Mr. Steyer, 56, accumulated more than $1.5 billion during his days at the hedge fund Farallon Capital Management, before he retired in 2012. Today, he is among the most visible of a new breed of wealthy donors on the left who call themselves donor-doers, taking a page from the Kochs, Mr. Bloomberg and others to build and run their own political organizations outside the two parties and sometimes in tension with them. But the newest wave of single-issue super PACs including groups seeking greater regulation of guns and of campaign fund-raising has drawn criticism even from those who share those priorities. This article is being discussed in the NewsTalkers Main Forum.
To read the rest of story and join in the discussion go to THIS LINK . ]]> Fri, 30 May 2014 01:31:12 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1468/climate-change-is-destroying-our-food http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1468 This week, the journal Nature Climate Change published a set of studies that looks at how the continually rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are affecting the quality of our food. They did this by looking at wheat samples that had been grown in 1996 using a technique that had boosted the amount of carbon dioxide in the field. They then cut the samples, sealed them up, and compared them to wheat that's been grown in normal levels of carbon dioxide. The findings : Protein production in the carbon-dioxide-field-grown wheat had been inhibited. Meaning that while the wheat grown in either environment looks the same, the actual contents of wheat grown with large amounts of CO2 contained a whole lot less protein. (To use a terrifying comparison: It would be like if all of the vats of your favorite IPA were suddenly, horrifically, turned into Bud Light; it's still technically beer, but is it really?) Predictions as far as how much protein will no longer be in wheat in the future range from about three percent to eight percent, meaning the "protein available for human consumption may drop." While we Americans may not need to buy more protein at the store , our species certainly does need protein in order to survive. Having less around, especially as the planet's population continues to increase, will lead to more people being unable to afford food : Food prices are likely to go up somewhere in a wide range of 3 percent to 84 percent by 2050 just because of climate change, the report said. That's not some far-away theoretical future. If you're 30 right now, that means food prices are going to skyrocket when you're in your mid-60s. And as Slate points out , less food availability is not a recipe for peace: "If I were to pick a single indicator--economic, political, social--that I think will tell us more than any other, it would be the price of grain," says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, who has been writing about the politics and economics of food since the 1950s. So, then. What do we do to avoid this future? While the overall effects of climate change aren't going to be countered with the short-term actions of a single person, there are subtle changes you can make to your eating habits that can ease the strain: This article is being discussed in the Main Forum. To read the rest of the article and join in the discussion go to THIS LINK . ]]> Fri, 30 May 2014 03:50:10 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1466/truly-bad-advice-on-climate-change http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1466 Eugene Linden On Wednesday, April 9, The New York Times published one of the most exasperating op-eds I've yet read on climate change. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote that articles that link global warming to the rash of extreme weather events hurt rather than help efforts to rouse the public to the scale of the threat by alienating conservatives. Instead they recommend focusing on how mitigation might make a better society, and on promoting nuclear power and geoengineering. Where to begin? Let's start with the fact that one reason conservatives have hardened their opposition even as the evidence that climate is changing has become overwhelming is that there has been an extremely well-funded campaign to spread confusion and disinformation on the issue going back to the 1990s. This is never mentioned in the op-ed. [Image: www.iop.org ] The unmentioned campaign has been remarkably effective. National newspapers like The Wall Street Journal give discredited scientists and peddlers of specious arguments ( e.g. , the argument that there has been no unusual rise in global temperatures) a pulpit and a patina of legitimacy. If you accept the arguments of the deniers that those scientists who spread alarm about global warming are twisting the facts and have a self-interested agenda, then of course you are going to see items linking extreme weather to climate change as further proof of their duplicity. Then there is the fact that media did low-key the issue for about a decade, starting in the mid-90s, despite an ever-stronger scientific consensus. The result of this low-key result was that the issue dropped off the radar. It's only because of the eye-popping weather extremes of the past few years that global warming has come back into focus. But the absurdity of this op-ed really comes into focus if you accept its premise. Let's say the scientific community and the media made a concerted effort to avoid linking disasters to climate change (actually, they are already doing that, as most of the articles and news items I've seen have stressed the uncertainties), what then? We Americans have proven time and again that we only act when there is an emergency, as after 9/11, for instance, or the financial crash of 2008 (not that the reactions to either of these crises should be a model for how to respond to climate change). Without a sense of urgency Americans are going to continue to do what they've been doing since the threat first gained attention 25 years ago: nothing. In the U.S. we are becoming more carbon-efficient as companies and individuals become more cost-conscious and alternatives gain appeal. The problem is that climate is changing faster than this conservative-friendly transition. In effect, Nordhaus and Shellenberger are saying: Don't acknowledge what is staring you in the face, because it's going to cause conservatives to stick their heads deeper into the sand. It's akin to advising a father not to mention that the house is burning down because it might upset the children. Thanks, guys! This article is being discussed in the Main Forum. To join in the discussion go to THIS LINK. ]]> Fri, 30 May 2014 18:21:31 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1459/scientific-journal-article-about-global-changes http://thenewstalkers.com/dowser/group_discuss/1459 Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:20:46 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1455/interesting-video-about-co2-and-climate-change http://thenewstalkers.com/dowser/group_discuss/1455 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:03:23 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1454/the-implications-of-projected-climate-change-for-freshwater-resources-and-their-management http://thenewstalkers.com/dowser/group_discuss/1454 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:44:10 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1451/future-roadways-to-be-paved-with-lighted-heated-solar-panels http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1451 Artist's rendition of Sandpoint, Idaho - Home of Solar Roadways
Imagine driving on a glass roadway with lighted markings and warning signs. A roadway that is generating and delivering electric power, high speed internet directly to your home and providing continuous, tower free cell phone service. A roadway that clears itself of snow and ice, and filters and processes storm water before delivering it to an irrigation system Yes, just imagine, that is for sure the future. But you wont have to imagine for very long, because the future has arrived. Delivered by Scott and Julie Brusaw an engineering couple from Sandpoint Idaho. The Brusaws have developed a road surface system that does all of those things and is in the process of actually building prototypes for parking lots, driveways and side walks and has received grants from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Solar Roadways, the company name for Scott and Julies brainchild, has raised $2 million in donations through Indiegogo crowd-funding to take the solar panel product to its next stage of development. The ultimate plan is to replace the world's roadways, sidewalks and others surfaces over time with four inch-thick panels that could collect enough solar energy to power the planet. Watch;

"Solar FREAKIN' Roadways!"

Click [ This Link ] to watch video. Related Article Related Article Related Article This article is being discussed in the Health, Science and Technology Forum. To read the story and join in the discussion go to THIS LINK . ]]> Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:00:27 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1443/new-climate-change-report-warns-of-dire-consequences http://thenewstalkers.com/larry-crehore/group_discuss/1443 Sun, 08 Jun 2014 16:20:11 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1434/perspective-on-climate-change-from-time-warner-cable-news http://thenewstalkers.com/dowser/group_discuss/1434 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:25:48 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1426/earthquakes-hit-alaskas-aleutian-island-and-new-zealand http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1426 A NewsTalkers Article CNN has reported earthquakes in the Aleutian Islands in the North Pacific near the Bering Sea, and in the South Pacific Ocean southeast ofRaoul Island near New Zealand, occurring less than 24 hours apart. I'm no seismologists, but the fact that thequakes are almost perpendicular with the earths axis and occurred so close together in time, seems to me like more than a coincidence. A tsunami advisory had been issued for coastal Alaskaafter the magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck Monday about 15 miles from Little Sitkin Island. The town of Adak had evacuated its 150 residents to a shelter about 600 feet above sea level after the initial tsunami warning, City Manager Layton Lockett told CNN.However the advisory waS later canceled. There were no initial reports of quake damage in Adak or on Shemya Island, said Ian Dickson, website manager for the Alaska Earthquake Information Center. Dickson said there were 17 measurable aftershocks in the two hours after the quake. First estimates put the quake, which had a depth of 71 milesaccording to seismologists, was initially measured at a magnitude of 8.0, was subsequently set by the U.S. Geological Survey at 7.9 magnitude. Almost simultaneously CNN reported a trio of earthquakes had struck in the South Pacific Ocean Tuesday morningsoutheast of Raoul Island, New Zealand, theU.S. Geological Survey said. Also, as in the Alaska quake, th ere were no immediate reports of damage. In the South Pacific, two quakes, with magnitudes of 6.9 and 6.3, hit within minutes of each other, according to USGS data. The larger of the two was originally reported by the USGS to be a 7.2-magnitude, but that measure was later downgraded to 6.9. A third, 6.2-magnitude quake struck about 45 minutes later. The quakes hit near the eastern edge of the Australian tectonic plate, one of the most active seismic regions in the world, according to the USGS. The South Pacific quakes all a depth of about 12 miles, and happened about 50 miles southeast of Raoul Island. This article is being discussed in the Main Forum. To read the story and join in the discussion go to THIS LINK . ]]> Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:38:51 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1420/interests-ideology-and-climate-change http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/1420
Well, think about global warming from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously, believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesnt matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct challenge to the libertarian worldview.

And the natural reaction is denial angry denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and youll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists. The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. Its not really surprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big-government power grab. After all, right-wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place. So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed. This article is being discussed in the Main Forum. To join in the discussion go to THIS LINK . ]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:43:54 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/761/nominate-your-candidates-for-the-2014-environmental-hall-of-fame-shame-awards http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/761 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 22:11:15 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/749/the-cornwall-alliance-dominionism-vs-science-and-religion http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/749 Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:47:53 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/563/exxon-mobil-funds-climate-change-denier-years-after-it-claimed-to-have-stopped http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/563
By Lizzie Plaugic February 27, 2015

Another round of documents released today by Greenpeace shows that oil and gas giant ExxonMobil was a big contributor to Soon's funding. The documents, obtained by Buzzfeed, show that Exxon gave Soon $76,106 from 2008 to 2010, despite the company's insistence in 2007 that it had stopped funding him. "Exxon told us that they would stop funding climate denial front groups," Greenpeace researcher Jesse Coleman told BuzzFeed . "Years later, they were still funding Willie Soon." We already knew Soon was taking Exxon's money: he received $131,000 from ExxonMobil in 2007 and 2008, according to a report from Reuters in 2011. Buzzfeed reports Exxon continued funding him through 2010, years after Exxon had vowed it would stop funding groups that denied climate change. Mark Boudreaux, a spokesperson for Exxon, said in 2007 that the company's stance on climate change was "widely misunderstood". Now Exxon spokesperson Alan Jeffers tells BuzzFeed that the company's "position on climate change is clear increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect." What isn't clear, though, is whether or not Exxon admits the carbon emissions are largely the result of human activity. Soon, a part-time researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, says in his research that transformations in the sun's energy not human activity are the reason for the planet's warming. His work has been published in several scientific journals, like New Astronomy , Chinese Science Bulletin, and Climate Research , in which he neglected to disclose his ties to energy companies. BuzzFeed reports that earlier this week,US Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) responded to the Greenpeace documents by asking fossil fuel lobbying groups and firms for their funding records. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) sent letters to US universities requesting they release their research funding sources. EXXONMOBIL SAYS ITS "POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE IS CLEAR. " " In a 2006 speech ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said, "It is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risks" of climate change, and that energy companies "should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways." Soon has also received funding fromthe American Petroleum Institute, coal utility Southern Company, and the Koch Foundation. Buzzfeed ,reports Soon is currently under investigation by his employer. [ Link to original article ] To keep the discussion for this article on one thread, the discussion is taking place in the Main Forum. To read the story and join in the discussion please go to THIS LINK . ]]> Sun, 01 Mar 2015 06:23:43 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/553/sun-is-extremely-quiet-scientists-worry-we-are-entering-ice-age http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/553 Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:06:34 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/542/the-2014-environmental-hall-of-fame-shame-winners http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/542 Sat, 07 Mar 2015 12:27:15 -0500 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/514/help-keep-electric-rates-low-no-extra-fees-on-solar-energy http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/514 Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:10:16 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/191/the-republican-fetish-with-water-bottles http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/191
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD JULY 17, 2015

This is an excellent strategy to eliminate a big source of the litter that befouls many parks, but after three years Republicans are looking for ways to roll it back. Thats too bad, because the policy saves money for the parks, by reducing cleanup costs, and for visitors, who are able to drink free tap water and buy refillable bottles sold at park concessions for a few dollars. The National Park Service hopes that people will bring reusable water bottles with them to enjoy the great outdoors . (Photo:daveynin/flickr)

The bottled water industry and its allies in Congress say the bans may be having adverse effects on public health and safety by leaving some visitors dehydrated if they cant find water and by pushing others to drink less healthy beverages, like sugary sodas. Those dangers are recognized by the Park Service, which requires any park with a ban to monitor its effects. There is no solid data yet on the bans effects on health or the environment, but the Park Service told Congress the initial feedbac k indicates that there is less plastic and aluminum garbage and litter in the parks.

Common sense suggests that would be the case, but House Republicans contend there is no evidence that the bans work to reduce waste. They have also called allowing the ban of bottled water intrusive government overreach that is robbing consumers of choice and could cost jobs for people who bottle water in a noble industry. House Republicans are trying to undercut the Park Service policy with an amendment, approved last week with cheers from the industry, to prevent any appropriated money from being used to carry out or enforce the bans. So far 19 parks, including Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina, Mount Rushmore National Monument in South Dakota and Zion National Park in Utah, have established water filling stations and banned sales of bottled water, although visitors remain free to bring in their own bottled water or any legal beverage. Grand Canyon estimates that plastic bottles made up 20 percent of its solid waste stream. It now sells refillable water bottles for as little as $2.50. Zion National Park has made more money in sales of reusable bottles than it lost in bottled water sales. Photo via Flickr userBob B. Brown.

The bottle bans could inspire park visitors to cut their bottled water use back at home, and help spread the message of the environmental benefits of choosing tap water. This article is also being discussed in the Main Forum. You can leave a comment here, or join the discussion in the main forum by going to THIS LINK . ]]> Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:35:38 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/108/an-integral-design-perspective-on-climate-and-ecological-crises http://thenewstalkers.com/j-martin/group_discuss/108 Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:40:44 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/106/the-citizens-climate-lobby-a-better-way-to-reduce-carbon-emissions http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/106 Sat, 22 Aug 2015 06:26:23 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/104/seed-how-much-will-ignoring-climate-change-cost-heres-the-alarming-answer http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/104
]]> Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:19:15 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/98/westar-energys-rate-request-a-study-in-short-term-thinking http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/98 Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:05:00 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/82/warmings-recipe-for-baked-alaska-trillions-of-tons-of-glaciers-gone-millions-acres-burned http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/82 Fire burns at the Funny River area in a Kenai-Kodiak Area forest on May 25, 2014. [Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service ] And while there may be many factors involved in glacier melt, all but about five of Alaska's 25,000 glaciers are shrinking, said University of Alaska Fairbanks glacier expert Regine Hock. She's adamant: "That's related to climate change." This article is also being discussed in the Main Forum. You can leave a comment here, or join the discussion in the main forum by going to THIS LINK . ]]> Wed, 02 Sep 2015 22:51:30 -0400 http://thenewstalkers.com/jerry-verlinger/group_discuss/49/climate-change-and-pope-francis-visit-with-congress http://thenewstalkers.com/que/group_discuss/49 Fri, 18 Sep 2015 22:25:20 -0400