According to the New York Times, voluntary wheel running with a load increases muscular adaptation and enhances gene expression in rat brains indicating that this kind of exercise may have the identical or even more useful neurological effects than endurance training.
Whether the same mechanisms occur in humans who undertake resistance training of one kind or another is not yet fully clear, but “the data look promising,” said Teresa Liu-Ambrose, a principal investigator at the Brain Research Center at the University of British Columbia. In results from her lab, older women who lifted weights performed significantly better on various tests of cognitive functioning than women who completed toning classes. Ms. Liu-Ambrose has also done brain scans of people who lifted weights to determine whether neurogenesis is occurring in their brains, and the results, still unpublished, are encouraging, she said.
Just how resistance training initiates changes in cognition remains somewhat mysterious. Ms. Liu-Ambrose said that “we now know that resistance training has significant benefits on cardiovascular health” and reduces “cardiovascular risk factors,” which otherwise would raise “one’s risk of cognitive impairment.” She speculates that resistance training, by strengthening the heart, improves blood flow to the brain generally, which is associated with better cognitive function. Perhaps almost as important, she added, resistance training at first requires an upsurge in brain usage. You have to think about “proper form and learning the technique,” she said, “while there generally is less learning involved in aerobic training,” like running.
The brain benefits from being used, so that, in a neat circle, resistance training may both demand and create additional brain circuitry. Imagine what someone like Einstein might have accomplished if he had occasionally gone to the gym.
Here's the thinking. The cosmological constant is a number that determines the energy density of the vacuum. It acts like a kind of pressure that, depending on its value, acts against gravity to push the universe apart or acts with gravity to pull the universe together towards a final Big Crunch.
Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive.
But although positive, the cosmological constant is tiny, some 122 orders of magnitude smaller than Planck's constant, which itself is a small number.
So Page and others have examined the effects of changing this constant. It's straightforward to show that if the the constant were any larger, matter would not form into galaxies and stars meaning that life could not form, at least not in the form we know it.
So what value of the cosmological constant best encourages galaxy and star formation, and therefore the evolution of life? Page says that a slightly negative value of the constant would maximise this process. And since life is some small fraction of the amount of matter in galaxies, then this is the value that an omnipotent being would choose.
In fact, he says that any positive value of the constant would tend to decrease the fraction of matter that forms into galaxies, reducing the amount available for life.
Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.
My thoughts:
As observers, we don't necessarily have to reside within a universe that is perfectly optimized for life—it just needs to be good enough to foster the emergence and sustenance of life. In the space of all possible life sustaining universes, ours may be but one example of many other viable models.
Our universe may not be fine-tuned for life, but it may be optimized for something else. Our universe, for example, may actually be an exquisite black hole generator. Or something we don't yet know.
Much of America believes that the health problems of Gulf residents are over. Unfortunately, that is not the case. At present there are serious health problems among many people in Gulf states. The reasons are not clear, but most people apparently believe it’s from the BP oil or the dispersants, thanks to the oil disaster of last spring. Below is a recent story about this issue, with a video from last November at a hearing of Gulf residents. This has been going on for a long time — why isn’t this making the mainstream media?
Cherri Foytlin at the Rally for the Truth about the BP Oil Spill contamination of the gulf seafood supply and effects of dispersant on the people who live there. ~ Grand Isle LA
Sick Gulf Residents Beg Officials for Help
Inter Press Service
By Dahr Jamail
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, Jan 14, 2011 (IPS) – In an emotionally charged meeting [last week] sponsored by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, fishermen, Gulf residents and community leaders vented their increasingly grave concerns about the widespread health issues brought on by the three-month-long disaster.
“Today I’m talking to you about my life,” Cherri Foytlin told the two commissioners present at the Jan. 12 meeting. “My ethylbenzene levels are 2.5 times the 95th percentile, and there’s a very good chance now that I won’t get to see my grandbabies…What I’m asking you to do now, if possible, is to amend [your report]. Because we have got to get some health care.”
Ethylbenzene is a form of benzene present in the body when it begins to break down. It is also present in BP’s crude oil.
“I have seen small children with lesions all over their bodies,” Foytlin, co-founder of Gulf Change, a community organisation based in Grand Isle, Louisiana, continued.
“We are very, very ill. And dead is dead. So it really doesn’t matter if the media comes back… or the president hears us, or… if the oil workers and the fishermen and the crabbers get to feed their babies and maybe have a good Christmas next year… Dead is dead…I know your job is probably already done, but I’d like to hire you if you don’t mind. And God knows I can’t pay you. But I need your heart. And I need your voice.”
Toxic Symptoms in the Dispersants:
Many of the chemicals present in the oil and dispersants are known to cause the following health problems:
Headaches, nausea, vomiting, kidney damage, altered renal functions, irritation of the digestive tract, lung damage, burning pain in the nose and throat, coughing, pulmonary edema, cancer, lack of muscle coordination, dizziness, confusion, irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat, difficulty breathing, delayed reaction time, memory difficulties, stomach discomfort, liver and kidney damage, unconsciousness, tiredness/lethargy, irritation of the upper respiratory tract, and hematological disorders.
A new draft paper by James Hansen of NASA titled, “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change” has been submitted for publication in the Belgrade Milankovitch Symposium volume — the paper is now under review, and part of it is below. His message in the introduction is clear — Climate change will develop into the biggest issue of this century. We have the opportunity to address it now, but the government is not doing that. In fact, President Obama wrote a bizarre article for the Wall Street Journal stating that his administration will review all government regulations and get rid of those that hurt jobs or place some kind of “burden” on business. He’s after “outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.” It’s bizarre because of the timing — at the exact moment that the EPA is going to take over greenhouse gas emission regulation because the Congress won’t. Obama certainly knows that Republicans are already trying to destroy EPA regulations before they start. Yet he purposely calls out the EPA for bad regulations in the article. The EPA is going to regulate carbon emissions and our president is promising Republicans that he’ll get rid of business-harming regulations. My guess is he means well, but this is going to come back to haunt his EPA. The Republicans will attempt to use his promise to try to halt EPA regulations. Grit TV talks about it here.
*The video version of this commentary says twenty-two deaths—it is actually twenty-nine.
Hansen’s paper Abstract and Intro is partially reprinted below, and you can download the entire paper here.
Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
by James Hansen
ABSTRACT
Milankovic climate oscillations help define climate sensitivity and assess potential human-made climate effects. We conclude that Earth in the warmest interglacial periods was less than 1°C warmer than in the Holocene and that goals of limiting human-made warming to 2°C and CO2 to 450 ppm are prescriptions for disaster.
Polar warmth in prior interglacials and the Pliocene does not imply that a significant cushion remains between today’s climate and dangerous warming, rather that Earth today is poised to experience strong amplifying polar feedbacks in response to moderate additional warming. Deglaciation, disintegration of ice sheets, is nonlinear, spurred by amplifying feedbacks. If warming reaches a level that forces deglaciation, the rate of sea level rise will depend on the doubling time for ice sheet mass loss. Gravity satellite data, although too brief to be conclusive, are consistent with a doubling time of 10 years or less, implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century. The emerging shift to accelerating ice sheet mass loss supports our conclusion that Earth’s temperature has returned to at least the Holocene maximum. Rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions is required for humanity to succeed in preserving a planet resembling the one on which civilization developed.
It was a pleasant surprise two nights ago, watching CNN International, when the weather person (a non-American) admitted that our weather problems are caused by climate change. Not sunspots, not natural variabilities, but climate change. She was adamant about this fact, and sounded rather defiant when she said climate change will have to be addressed. It was a brief moment and it sounded unplanned. An even better moment came on ABC News from the previous week, when for the very first time (to my knowledge) a mainstream broadcast U.S. media segment on the weather said very clearly that our wild weather of the past year has been caused by climate change.
The best part of the segment is that they did not turn the report into a false debate on climate change by presenting “the other side” of the story. That would be the false side. Every other time climate change has been presented on mainstream U.S. broadcast media, there has always been some ridiculous “climate change denier” giving his or her side of things. This is a major hurdle that U.S. media seems to have finally gotten over. They no longer feel the need to present fraudulent, non-scientific information on their news broadcasts. I don’t think people in other countries can truly appreciate what a major event this is. Climate Progress wrote about it like this:
Parts of the media are starting to connect the dots — see New York Times front-page story: In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming! Trenberth: “It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”
What follows is the Nightline story, which is pretty good, though not as thorough as the ABC evening news story . . . “
We are in the midst of a torrent of information about how hot the world is going to get, and by when, due to human-caused global warming and climate change. We are also seeing more solid predictions of what the world will be like to live in, in a very short period of time, due to global warming and climate change. Warm countries like India will be hardest hit at first and food shortages will soon be a crisis in many countries. According to the Universal Ecological Fund, these countries are fast approaching a peak food situation.
“The Earth will be 2.4 degree celsius warmer by 2020 if the world continues with the business-as-usual approach to climate change and India would be one of the hardest hit countries witnessing up to 30% reduction in crop yields, a new study has claimed.. . . The rising temperatures will adversely affect the world’s food production and India would be the hardest hit, according to the analysis by the Universal Ecological Fund.
The report titled “The Food Gap — The Impacts of Climate Change on Food Production: A 2020 Perspective” predicted that crop yield in India, the second largest producer of rice and wheat, would fall up to 30% by the end of this decade. The report, however, noted that the impacts of climate change would vary from region to region. While central and southern region would witness adverse impacts, the impacts could be “beneficial” for east and southeast Asia, the report predicted. [especially if they can move the east and southeast Asia to other planets where they won't have to interact with the rest of the starving world, which may be at war over food and water shortages].
Source: MSN Green/PTI
From the Royal Society:
The analysis within this paper offers a stark and unremitting assessment of the climate change challenge facing the global community. There is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global mean surface temperature at below 2°C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2°C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2°C now more appropriately represents the threshold between dangerous and extremely dangerous climate change. Consequently, and with tentative signs of global emissions returning to their earlier levels of growth, 2010 represents a political tipping point. The science of climate change allied with emission pathways for Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 nations suggests a profound departure in the scale and scope of the mitigation and adaption challenge from that detailed in many other analyses, particularly those directly informing policy.
This is one reason of several why growing food for ethanol and other fuels is such a terrible idea. We are going to have to abandon that very soon. Below is more of the report from the Royal Society.
Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world
Only if Annex 1 nations reduce emissions immediately at rates far beyond those typically countenanced and only then [...]
For people who don’t think that climate change will be expensive, they need only to look at the costs of its results in 2010. The grand total of natural disasters below includes earthquakes, which of course are not caused by climate change. But the immense cost of wild weather and that results of that cannot be ignored, especially since they will increase in coming years. In addition to monetary cost, the human cost is also very high.
Natural disasters caused $109 billion in economic damage last year, three times more than in 2009, with Chile and China bearing most of the cost, the United Nations said Monday.
CLIMATE CHANGE [disasters]
The most populous cities on earthquake fault lines include Mexico City, New York, Mumbai, Delhi, Shanghai, Kolkata, Jakarta and Tokyo, according to the U.N.’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
Many people also live in parts of urban areas vulnerable to landslides and floods, which are anticipated to occur more often as a result of climate change, Wahlstrom said, also warning of rising risks from “silent events” like droughts.
… The storms, earthquakes, heatwaves and cold snaps affected 207 million people and killed 296,800, according to the data, which does not incorporate an increase of Haiti’s death toll announced earlier this month by Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.
The global toll estimates that 55,736 people died from a summer heatwave in Russia which led to crop failures and helped drive up food prices.
It also says 2,968 people were killed in an April earthquake in China and 1,985 died from the Pakistani floods.
The 2009 economic price tag of $34.9 billion was unusually low because of the lack of a major weather or climate event in the period, which nonetheless saw floods and typhoons in Asia and an earthquake in Indonesia.
A major earthquake in China in 2008 caused $86 billion in damage, bringing that year’s economic toll to approximately $200 billion. In 2005, the hurricanes that struck the southern United States drove up the global disaster toll to nearly $250 billion.
The economic cost estimates are based on data from national authorities as well as insurance companies including Swiss Re, Munich Re and Lloyd’s. CRED is part of the University of Louvain in Belgium and maintains a database of international disasters for the United Nations.
Oil went up another $3 per barrel today. The media would like us to believe this is due to the unrest in Egypt. Does anyone really believe that? It’s a simple and clear fact that oil is running out, and easy to get at oil has already all but run out. We mainly depend these days on dwindling, drying up oil fields, deep-water drilling, and Canadian tar sands oil, and that will be even more the case as time goes on. Interesting that politicians would have us believe that oil is not really running out — the problem according to them is that we get our oil from the Middle East. In fact, the U.S. does not get much of our oil from the Middle East at all, only about 14% these days. That may increase a bit if we go to war with Iran, a development that would be a true disaster in so many ways.
So, the truth is that we reached peak oil as a country in 1974, and the rest of the world is now approaching peak oil too, if it hasn’t already. In response to this reality, The Nation magazine has started a series of videos and information on peak oil, and above is the latest video from one of the biggest peak oil warners, James H. Kunstler. What can we expect? He ties it into our (poor) financial health.
“In this fifth video in the series “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate” from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, author, blogger and social critic James Howard Kunstler opens up on two circumstances he sees running neck and neck “that are going to put us out of business as an advanced industrial civilization”—the “fiasco” in banking, money and finance and the unfolding “energy predicament.” He explains that the crises are really all about “capital” and that we need to look at how wealth has been accumulated and deployed for productive purposes.” Read more here.
From The Nation:
Peak Oil is the point at which petroleum production reaches its greatest rate just before going into perpetual decline. In “Peak Oil and a Changing Climate,” a new video series from The Nation and On The Earth productions, radio host Thom Hartmann explains that the world will reach peak oil within the next year if it hasn’t already. As a nation, the United States reached peak oil in 1974, after which it became a net oil importer.
This is discussed in the new Climate Files podcast too.
Will it ever end? It’s still January, but everyone everywhere is tired of the seemingly endless snow. The climate has changed so a situation of frequent storms is now life as we know it. We should embrace the snow and learn to love it instead because what choice do we have?
Watching a news show this morning, they wearily said, “You won’t believe this but another significant snow storm is headed our way. . . .” Here’s a message for the news media: If you are tired of the snow, and tired of telling people about the snow, then why didn’t you report the truth about climate change when you were first aware of it? Maybe something could have been done, 20 years ago. Instead, the news media presented everything as an uncertainty, or a debate, and pretended global warming might be “nothing” as equally as it might be “something” to worry about. Well, now we know it’s “something” for sure, and there is no real debate about that. There are not two opposing sides to the issue of climate change. Yet the news media pretended for years that there was, and now they have to report on a new storm every other day. That will be the repetitive nature of their job from now on, and it will be partially their own fault for not presenting the science long ago.
Why are we getting so much snow? No, it’s not another “ice age”. Our freezer is melting. See the story below for why this is.
Arctic Defrost Dumping Snow on U.S. and Europe
by Stephen Leahy
UXBRIDGE, Canada – The world’s northern freezer is on rapid defrost as large volumes of warm water are pouring into the Arctic Ocean, speeding the melt of sea ice, according to a new study.
The world’s northern freezer is on rapid defrost as large volumes of warm water are pouring into the Arctic Ocean, speeding the melt of sea ice, according to a new study. Surface temperatures in parts of the Arctic have been 21 degrees C above normal for more than a month in recent weeks.
“Boats were still in the water during the first week of January,” said David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada, referring to southern Baffin Island, some 2,000 km north of Montreal. This is a region that receives just four or five hours of weak sunlight during the long winter. Temperatures normally range from -25 to -35 degrees C but were above zero on some days in January.
“It’s impossible for many people in parts of the eastern Arctic to safely get on the ice to hunt much-needed food for their families – for the second winter in a row,” Phillips said in a report.
The warming and melting of the Arctic is happening much faster than expected and new data reveals that huge volumes of warmer water from the North Atlantic are now flowing into and warming up the [...]
THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO REGULATE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY
This story illustrates the insanity of a goal of trading one fossil fuel (oil and gas) for another (natural gas) and then calling natural gas “clean energy”. This fracking practice is nothing sort of insanity. They are poisoning the ground, and the dirt itself, as well as the water people are depending on. There is no scenario I can think of where this fracking practice should be legal. The industry will not regulate itself. Congress has to step up and stop this. This should not be allowed anywhere, least of all in the U.S.
NATURAL GAS: Fracking companies injected 32M gallons of diesel, House probe finds (01/31/2011)
Fracking Companies Injected 32M Gallons of Diesel, House Probe Finds
Drilling service companies have injected at least 32 million gallons of diesel fuel underground as part of a controversial drilling technique, a Democratic congressional investigation has found.
Injecting diesel as part of “hydraulic fracturing” is supposed to be regulated by U.S. EPA. But an agency official told congressional investigators that EPA had assumed that the use of diesel had stopped seven years ago.
“The industry has been saying they stopped injecting toxic diesel fuel into wells,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who led the inquiry. “But our investigation showed this practice has been continuing in secret and in apparent violation of the [Safe Drinking Water Act].”
Waxman calculated the amount of diesel based on voluntary disclosures from “service companies” like Halliburton Co. and Schlumberger, which do the “frack jobs” for well operators. On Monday, Waxman and fellow committee members Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) shared their findings in an open letter to EPA officials.
Read more after the break. This video is from November 2010.
The letter said they had not been able to determine whether the diesel injections threatened groundwater. The service companies told Waxman’s staff they did not know how close their frack jobs were to sources of drinking water, saying their clients, the well operators, would have that information.
Of the total figure, 10 million gallons was “straight diesel fuel,” according to the letter, while another 22 million gallons was products containing at least 30 percent diesel.
If you are reading this and not saying “OH MY GOD” you must work for Halliburton or one of these fracking companies.
It is not my intention to reprint the entire article here, but this story is too important to not spread far and wide. The link to the original article is here. This is THE reason why fossil fuels have to go. Regulation is not enough. The drilling and obtaining of these fuels is going to pollute the environment to the point where we will all be poisoned. Do we really want our tap water to burn when lit? Do we want American well water poisoned by these greedy corporations? More from this incredible story:
Remember President Obama’s speech on race that he gave during his presidential campaign? It was widely praised as being a very important speech. During the health care insurance bill campaign, he traveled the country giving speeches about the need for change and reform in health care, and got huge public support (for a very poor bill). Obama is a very gifted speaker, no doubt about that. That’s why he needs to use his oratory gifts to gain public support for serious action on climate change. Why hasn’t he done that yet? All this important issue gets from the President is mentions here and there.
Given its importance, climate change needs its own speech. President Obama has to be honest with the American people. I recently heard an environmental author say that the U.S. Republican Party is the only major organization in the world that denies climate change and actively works against action on it. That has to change, and it will only change if the President gets behind a real effort to do something about it instead of sweeping it under a rug.
After the last Climate Files podcast, in which I said Obama has to give that climate change speech, it appeared, as if by magic a few days later. I know it’s not related to what I said, but it was pretty great timing. Here it is, from Climate Progress and their guest writer, Bill Becker*.
Like the BP disaster, the extreme weather events occurring worldwide offer a Sputnik moment to focus attention on the urgent need to address climate change. Here is the speech I’d love to see Obama give in a special session of Congress, perhaps on Earth Day.
The setting: In a major departure from protocol, several guests take seats behind the President, alongside Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker John Boehner. They are Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu; NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco; the President’s principal science advisor, Dr. John Holdren; NASA’s Dr. James Hansen; and two scientists from the private sector – Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and coauthor of the World Bank’s 2010 World Development Report, and Dr. Robert Correll, head of the U.S. office of the Global Energy Assessment. Taking a seat next to them is Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in full uniform.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
In my State of the Union address 3 months ago, I called this America’s Sputnik moment. I proposed that by 2035, we obtain 80 percent of our energy from clean technologies. I talked about how our genius for innovation is the key to the future of our country. Our economic security depends on it.
Tonight I want to talk as Commander and Chief, and as the chief executive officer of some of the [...]
It almost seems like the EPA is one of the most powerful branches of government these days. Everyone who should be is scared of them (meaning: Republicans and polluters). All the EPA is doing is attempting to protect our health against an assault of money and unregulated environmental damage from fossil fuel companies, lobbying groups and even right-wing members of Congress, who get lots of campaign money from these polluters. It seems that impending regulations or even just uncertainty over permitting is forcing positive things to happen lately, but it’s also leading to an avalanche of propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. There is a lot at stake with the end of the era of fossil fuels and that is the health and general welfare of all Americans. Coal and other fossil fuels are heavily polluting and they know their days are numbered.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC this morning [Feb. 3] announced it is postponing plans to drill for oil this summer in seas off Alaska, citing continued uncertainty over whether it would receive federal permits. Shell CEO Peter Voser … said the company would need to spend as much as $150 million without knowing whether it would receive needed permits from U.S. EPA and the Interior Department.
“Despite our investment in acreage and technology and our work with the stakeholders, we haven’t been able to drill a single exploration well,” Voser said. “Critical permits continue to be delayed, and the timeline for getting these permits is still uncertain.”
The plan took a hit in late December when an EPA appeals board remanded Shell’s Clean Air Act permits back to the company for revisions, faulting the agency’s analysis of the impacts of nitrogen dioxide emissions from drill ships on the Alaska Native communities (Greenwire, Jan. 5). Read more here.
The EPA is also working slowly to regulate previously-unregulated water pollution under the Clean Water Act. This is just the beginning of the EPA beginning to regulate water safety. Next their plan is to regulate (and probably ban) several chemicals that are used in natural gas fracking. The public would be horrified to find out the number and toxicity of the chemicals that are used to extract a supposedly “cleaner” form of energy, and those chemicals are poisoning ground water. There is also an alarming amount of rocket fuel chemicals in the water in certain places in California. It’s obvious why the fossil fuel industries can’t regulate themselves! See story after the break.
EPA to Regulate Rocket Fuel Chemical
Sometime in the future, Americans may not have to worry about perchlorate in their drinking water. For the first time in its history, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to regulate perchlorate, a potentially toxic substance that may impact the normal function of the thyroid.
In a separate action, the EPA said it is also moving towards establishing a drinking water standard to address a group of up to 16 17 toxic chemicals that may pose risks to human health.
A Brazilian crosses the muddy bottom of the Rio Negro, a major tributary to the Amazon river, in the city of Manaus, October 26, 2010. Photo: Euzivaldo Queiroz
The Amazon is in a world of trouble. From World Environment News:
A widespread drought in the Amazon rain forest last year was worse than the “once-in-a-century” dry spell in 2005 and may have a bigger impact on global warming than the United States does in a year, British and Brazilian scientists said on Thursday. The widespread drought last year dried up major rivers in the Amazon and isolated thousands of people who depend on boat transportation, shocking climate scientists who had billed the 2005 drought as a once-in-a-century event.
More frequent severe droughts like those in 2005 and 2010 risk turning the world’s largest rain forest from a sponge that absorbs carbon emissions into a source of the gases, accelerating global warming, the report found.
Trees and other vegetation in the world’s forests soak up heat-trapping carbon dioxide as they grow, helping cool the planet, but release it when they die and rot.
“If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rain forest would reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change to a major source of greenhouse gases that could speed it up,” said lead author Simon Lewis, an ecologist at the University of Leeds.
The study, published in the journal Science, found that last year’s drought caused rainfall shortages over a 1.16 million square-mile (3 million square km) expanse of the forest, compared with 734,000 square miles (1.9 million square km) in the 2005 drought.
It was also more intense, causing higher tree mortality and having three major epicenters, whereas the 2005 drought was mainly focused in the southwestern Amazon. As a result, the study predicted the Amazon forest would not absorb its usual 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in both 2010 and 2011. In addition, the dead and dying trees would release 5 billion metric tons of the gas in the coming years, making a total impact of about 8 billion metric tons, according to the study. In comparison, the United States emitted 5.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use in 2009. The combined emissions caused by the two droughts were probably enough to have canceled out the carbon absorbed by the forest over the past 10 years, the study found.
More sad news for our world’s natural lungs, the Amazon rain forest. According to Mongabay:??
Between May 2000 and August 2005, Brazil lost more than 132,000 square kilometers of forest—an area larger than Greece—and since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rain forest have been destroyed.
And now a new dam threatens even more. This is the worst story of all, and an environmental minister in Brazil has actually resigned over this.
Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy: The U.S. and China both recognize the need to move aggressively on reducing carbon emissions and developing clean energy sources. Event: U.S.-China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation http://bit.ly/eIUb8D
The video is from the end of January, 2011, at the Brookings Institute. Middle Eastern unrest around the world is making people who think about energy more concerned than usual and Chu appears to be rolling out a renewed push for renewable energy, in part based on the progress China is making. Notice that Steven Chu never mentions peak oil? See the peak oil review here. (Everything I’m reading about oil prices on mainstream websites quotes someone who says our oil reserves are plentiful, the problem with price is political. Not true.)
Unlike the US, China has a Renewable Energy Standard, a goal for a percentage of power to be produced by solar, wind, and other renewable energy.
” Politico: For all the uncertainty surrounding events in Egypt, at least one thing is clear: Political unrest in a Middle Eastern country will inevitably lead to a new fight over oil in Washington.
Protests against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have already caused a fresh uptick in global crude oil prices, and politicians are ready to pounce with new hearings and old talking points.
Steven Chu recently warned that unrest in oil countries might affect our oil supply and he told reporters at the end of January that we need to diversify our energy supply. Yet, he talks openly about our climate goals, as you can hear in the video above.
What happens when oil regimes around the world begin to fall, as seems to be happening? There are/were uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and reportedly in Yemen, Jordan and maybe other countries. If the U.S. supply of oil is cut off, as may actually happen if things deteriorate, do our leaders lead us into more war, or give up and turn to renewables and a better future?
We need to move to renewables even faster than orginally planned, but my guess is that politicians will decide they need move on to drilling in other areas, like the Arctic. Our next political battles may be with China and Russia, over who gets to drill in deep water the most in the Arctic Sea, now that the sea ice is disappearing. That would be the worst thing I can imaging happening, because it will greatly add to global warming, but it’s already happening to some extent. Steven Chu seems to be warning us against this outcome. You can bet BP and Exxon are already making plans for this drilling, as are oil companies in Russia and China.
At the very least, the unrest around the world (not just in Egypt) will make oil and gas lots more expensive, but that’s happening anyway. Chu’s ultimate plan involves a big push, thanks to the billionaire T. Boone Pickens, to turn every car and truck in the U.S. into a natural [...]
One of the best ways to cut down on climate change-causing emissions is for people to give up driving their individual cars when possible, and use low-carbon public transportation. That will get easier to do in the U.S. very soon if the President’s plan for high-speed rail proceeds as planned.
White House launches high-speed rail push with $53 billion plan
The Obama administration on Tuesday called on Congress to back a six-year, $53-billion investment in high-speed, intercity rail, saying it was “dreaming big” on reinventing US infrastructure.
But Republicans, now wielding the power of the purse after November’s mid-term election triumph, slammed the plan, and called on the White House to stop throwing money at America’s “Soviet-style” railroad system.
Read more here.
President Obama is beginning to fulfill some of his promises that he made in the State of the Union Address last month. Next week he will release his federal budget that includes a 6-year, $53 billion dollar plan to build high-speed rail networks across the country. Obama also insisted that this project will include strong buy-American provisions that attract American industries and create 10s of thousands of American jobs. Unfortunately, Republicans aren’t on board with the plan. The chairman of the House Transportation Committee, John Micah, advised the President to squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal projects”. There is nothing marginal about high speed rail or rebuilding infrastructure or greening our transportation system in the U.S. In fact, it’s exactly what we need to do to create jobs and start replacing our outdated transportation in this country.
Especially when nations like China are far ahead of the U.S. in new technology investments. The rest of the world is already well ahead of the United States on high speed rail. You can travel across much of Europe this way, and wouldn’t it be nice if Americans could park their cars for weeks out of the year and travel by high speed rail all over the country, or just to work? No, that would not be good for Republican’s best friends like Big Oil, which is why they are against it. In fact Republicans are usually against doing things that are good for Americans and jobs if it causes any business friend of the GOP to potentially suffer profit losses.
California is the state in our country that is usually ahead of the rest of the country on environmental issues, and new technology. California is already developing high-speed rail. (So is Florida).
California developing high-speed rail stations
Cities that expect to have passenger stations for California’s proposed high-speed train system will get help from the state to plan for development around the stations.
Meeting Thursday in Sacramento, the California High-Speed Rail Authority board approved putting up as much as $200,000 per station site. The board also approved guidelines for station-area planning. The money is intended to promote connections between local transit systems as well as what planners call “transit-oriented development” to encourage greater ridership on the high-speed trains. In the [...]
The EPA cracks down on one of the world’s biggest cement plant polluters. This pollution, like all pollution, is a public health risk that the government has every right and obligation to regulate and stop.
Cement Manufacturer to Pay $1.4 Million for Clean Air Act Violations
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Justice Department announced today that Cemex, Inc., one of the largest producers of Portland cement in the United States, has agreed to pay a $1.4 million penalty for Clean Air Act violations at its cement plant in Fairborn, Ohio. In addition to the penalty, Cemex will spend an estimated $2 million on pollution controls that will reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), pollutants that can lead to childhood asthma, acid rain, and smog.
“Emissions of harmful pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides can lead to a number of serious health and environmental problems, including premature death and heart disease,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s settlement will help keep harmful air pollution out of Ohio communities, protect children with asthma and prevent region-wide public health problems.”
“Through this action, the United States and Ohio will secure reductions of harmful emissions by requiring that Cemex adopt state-of-the-art technology and take immediate steps to control pollutants,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “As in the case of other Portland cement plants that have agreed to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, the Cemex plant has been a major source of air pollution, and this settlement will result in a healthier environment for residents of Fairborn, Ohio and the surrounding region.”
The settlement addresses modifications Cemex made to its cement plant without obtaining the proper permit, as required by the Clean Air Act. Major sources of air pollution are required to obtain permits which require the installation of pollution control technology before making changes that would significantly increase air emissions. Today’s settlement ensures that the proper pollution control equipment will be installed to reduce future emission levels.
Cemex will install state of the art control technologies that will reduce annual emissions of NOx by approximately 2,300 tons and SO2 by approximately 288 tons. Air pollution from cement plants can travel significant distances downwind, crossing state lines and creating region-wide health problems. These effects can have greater impacts on communities disproportionately exposed to environmental risks and to vulnerable populations, including children.
Reducing air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including cement facilities, is one of EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011-2013. The initiative continues EPA’s focus on improving compliance with the new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act among industries that have the potential to cause significant amounts of air pollution. In fiscal year 2010, EPA’s enforcement actions in the cement manufacturing, [...]
Remember T. Boone Pickens and his “plan” to transfer all fuels for cars in the U.S. to natural gas? He’s pushing that plan harder than ever, and in his most recent email update on his business venture, he informs us that he has been meeting non-stop with politicians in Washington. He’s his own biggest lobbyist, along with his “army” of supporters who seem to think he cares about the environment. (He does not). This video shows how much he really hates “foreign oil”. He hates it so much he has invested $500 million dollars in it. (Pickens shows up at about 2:12) The U.S. seems to be on a destructive path to pursue natural gas with far more enthusiasm than we are pursuing renewable, clean energy, thanks to greedy people like T. Boone Pickens.
Then there is the seeming deception of how much new foreign oil we are becoming dependent on. It’s the dirtiest oil on the planet — the tar sands oil from Alberta. It’s about to pour into the United States, and if you don’t like that, you have to speak out now. Some of the proposed pipelines have already been approved by Hilltary Clinton herself, acting on behalf of the State Department, at the orders of President Obama.
Interestingly, a report about the pipelines to carry tar sands oil that was done on December 23rd was not released to the public until this month. Was someone trying to hide the report, called the Keystone XL Assessment? This oil extraction is causing unprecedented environmental damage in Canada to the land, the wildlife, and at least one river. The pipelines are not without their own negative environmental impacts, either. President Obama discussed these pipelines and the tar sands oil with Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper when they met on February 4th. 86 groups sent a letter to President Obama urging him to say no to tar sands and Keystone XL. The decision for the latest proposed pipeline will be made soon.
A decision on the proposal is expected within the next weeks or months. The Canadian National Energy Board approved the project in March 2010.
See more facts about the tar sands and pipelines here.
Notice the pipeline in red? That is the one called the “Alberta Clipper” that goes through my state of Minnesota, and which was approved by Hillary Clinton herself at the State Department in 2009. The State Department is in charge of approving these pipelines because this dirty oil that is gotten by such nasty and unconventional means is considered a matter of national security. From this report, it’s clear that fossil fuels are not just embraced by this government, they are considered matters of national security. This outrageous stance on such horribly polluting oil is something that environmental groups and the rest of us must try to overturn. The whole story is below.
TransCanada claims their proposed pipeline could free the U.S. of Middle Eastern oil imports. Opponents say DOE’s report shows the pipeline is [...]
In this remarkable collection of 100 manifestos from the last 100 years, Alex Danchev presents the contradictory and echoing spirits of such diverse movements as Vorticism, Feminism, Dogme, Surrealism, Communism and Cannibalism, taking in along the way cinema, architecture, fashion and cookery.
Written by a wide range of artists including Wassily Kandinsky, Wyndham Lewis, Claes Oldenburg, Derek Jarman, Gilbert and George, Rem Koolhaas, Werner Herzog, Takashi Murakami and Billy Childish, the revolutionary spirit is clear in each manifesto, as they promote and critique every aspect of Art from fun and fearlessness to violence and freedom.
Casa Depero, Rovereto November 3, 2010 March 6, 2011
The Mart presents Tullio Crali, a leading exponent of the cultural debate in the years between the two wars. Among the works on show at Casa Depero are some that the artist donated to the museum in 2000.
Translation, introduction and notes by Emilia David Drogoreanu Foreward by Ion Pop Publishing House Bucharest, November 2009 276 p. ISBN 978-973-124-412-9
