Sixty seconds doesn’t seem like a lot of time; however, there are lots of things that can be done in sixty seconds or less.  For instance, an average adult can type 38 to 40 words and blink between ten and 30 times every sixty seconds (sometimes simultaneously).  Furthermore, an elite distance runner can run about 180 steps every sixty seconds and the world’s fastest rappers can recite over 723 syllables in even less time.

There are a lot of things an average person can do in sixty seconds or less in their everyday life that will, more or less, benefit the earth.  So here it goes…

• Switch out your light bulbs to ones that are more energy efficient.

Remember that every time you turn on a light in your home or office you send a message to the power grid, demanding more energy.  In America, 301 million people share the same power grid.  That’s five percent of the world’s population, inevitably sucking up a quarter of the earth’s energy. Over half of the grid is powered by coal plants alone, which are the nation’s number one culprit for greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that, for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a coal-fired plant, 1.43 lbs of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere.  In Texas, 144 lung cancer deaths and 1,791 heart attacks a year are attributed to pollution from power plants. Switch to energy efficient light bulbs and cut the amount of energy you use by two-thirds.

• Conserve water by turning off your faucet when brushing your teeth or taking less time in the shower.

The average American family consumes around 300 gallons of water everyday. This works out to be 495,000 gallons per person every year.  What boggles my mind is the fact that there are about 1.2 billion people in the world who don’t have access to clean, portable water and here we are overestimating the frugality of our supply.  We have to realize that water is fast becoming the world’s ultimate commodity, and water conservation is the most cost-effective way to reduce our demand for it.

There are several quick and easy things you can do in your home or change in your daily routine to conserve water.  First, you can simply cut your shower time by 60 seconds or more.  If every member in your family does the same, you can end up saving 200 to 300 gallons a month.  Also, if you are a fan of hot showers and hate the first 60 seconds or so of cold water that first escapes the showerhead, you can use a container to catch the cold water and save it for when you want to water plants or rinse your vegetables.  Second, turn off your faucet when you are brushing your teeth or shaving, and don’t leave the water running when you’re washing dishes—fill one of your sinks for rinse water instead.  These simple acts can save three gallons of water in one day alone.

• Read your product labels.

The production and distribution of all kinds of clothing have a tremendous impact on the environment.   Wool comes courtesy of sheep, whose herds are known to burp and err… otherwise emit methane—a greenhouse gas that is almost 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. In countries like New Zealand, methane is fast becoming the most potent greenhouse gas.  Researchers for the United Nations now believe that livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change—being responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than cars are.  Furthermore, the method of growing cotton is extremely petrochemical-intensive.   About ten percent of all agricultural chemicals in the United States are used to produce cotton, which is grown on just one percent of all major agricultural land.  The process of growing cotton requires 110 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre.  At the end of the day, the use of these synthetic fertilizers and soil additives can wreak havoc on our soil, water, and air supply–leading to oxygen-less deadzones or even acid rain.  Some popular fashion outlets like H&M are now carrying lines of eco-friendly garments, including those made from organic cotton.  Green is the new black; be aware of where your clothes come from and how they are made.

As for the ever popular subject of organic food…

One may enjoy biting into the more conventional, juicy fuji apple—truly nature’s candy, and some say the sweetest apple in town; however, the organic gala apple is just as good as the former, but better for you and for the environment.  It’s true that organic food products are almost always more expensive than the more conventional fruits and vegetables; although, it would only be fair to point out that organic farming is a major player in the effort to combat global warming.  Birthed during the organic movement of the 1930s and 1940s, today organic farms cover a mere 0.8% of the total farming area in the world. Many people don’t realize the great benefits organic farming offers to our land, lives, and livelihood.  Aside from its major contribution of reducing carbon dioxide emissions (done by sequestering carbon in the soil), organic farming also (1) cuts production cost by 25% to 30% for farmers, (2) reduces soil erosion by up to 50%, (3) has a positive effect on the ecosystem and groundwater supplies, and (4) preserves the original nutritional content of food, giving consumers a healthier and fresher substitute.

• Reuse and Recycle: refill your water bottles and separate your trash.

Ever buy a bottle of water before working out at the gym, or have a bottle of water with your lunch?  Have you ever contemplated the existence of that bottle of water and how it can affect the environment, even after you have used it?

The United States is the largest consumer of bottled water in the world, with Americans chugging a little less than seven billion gallons in 2004 alone.  It takes one and a half million barrels of oil a year to produce the part polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles made in the U.S.  That’s enough oil to fuel 100,000 cars commuting into downtown Austin daily (this is also another issue that needs to be tackled).  Globally, it takes more than two and a half million tons of plastic per year to make water bottles.  This is a process that requires a whole lot of energy and, in the end, leaves us with heaps of unwanted plastic waste worldwide. Now, I’m not saying to boycott bottled water.   I am just saying that if you do purchase bottled water—and do so frequently, don’t throw the bottle out right away.  You can reuse the bottle—refilling it with water from the tap or water fountains.

Furthermore, by taking 60 seconds to put your newspaper, tuna can, or salsa jar into a separate recycling bin you can ultimately save humanity years in environmental damage.  About 60% of the household trash thrown away everyday can potentially be recycled.

• Say something!

Probably one of the simplest things an individual can do to bring awareness to green issues and hopefully effect change is to speak up and say something.  You can talk to the manager of your local supermarket and ask that they carry more organic products.  You could call or email your local representative to speak about environmental issues that affect your family, neighborhood, city, or state.

Why not take 60 seconds out of your day to save the earth?

Yours truly,

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Your skin is under attack every minute of every day.

It is constantly being bombarded by elements in the environment and atmosphere that are damaging and harmful. Even more so for those that live and or work in higher risk areas.

Many but, unfortunately, still not all of us now realize that the sun is not necessarily our friend. And, we are not talking about global warming.

Much has been written, even within this very blog, about UVA and UVB rays and, while we may not fully understand what solar ultra violet radiation is all about, we now know it is out to get us! What is less understood about these rays is that they are always around, even on the cloudiest of days and even during the wintertime. They damage the cells on the top layers of the skin causing them to burn and die off. You may think that a suntan looks good but, in reality, any change in the skin’s colour after being in the sun is actually a sign of damage. Simply stated, its a burn!

But the sun is not the only thing out there that is taking a shot.

The cold and wind are also very damaging elements for the skin. They both sap moisture from the outermost layer and leave it vulnerable to damage. Moisture acts as an important protection for the skin and nourishes it as well; many of the vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and other important elements that the skin needs to stay healthy are contained in the moisture or hydration of the skin.

Pollution is another common irritant to skin, as are very high levels of dust and dirt. There is always dirt in the air and the skin is designed to collect and then rinse away any minor coating of dust. But, if you live or work in a very polluted or very dirty environment, your pores are going to get clogged with this dirt and you may be prone to breakouts and more skin irritations. The skin’s pores are designed to handle only so much dirt and pollution, and anything more than that is just going to sit on your face and cause damage.

And theres still more! The air around us is full of other things that are also enemies of the skin. Things such as chlorine, acid rain, tobacco smoke and so on.

If you can’t avoid these enemies, the next best thing to do is to at least try and defend your skin as best as you can. Moisture is a good barrier between your skin and all these attacking elements, both from within when you drink water (yes, you really should drink at least eight glasses a day) and from on top of your skin with a quality skin care product, especially one that also offers broad spectrum UV protection.

You may not be able to protect your skin from every harsh and damaging element there is, but you can help it along by staying hydrated and using a good, multi function moisturizer every day.

http://www.autodetailingnetwork.com/more-detaling-articles/2009/8/9/acid-rain-auto-paint-finishes-can-be-saved.html

Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 10:29AM

By Ron Ketcham
from Automotive International

All of us have read seen TV shows, and heard horror stories about acid rain. Unfortunately most information regarding acid rain and automotive paint finishes is at least slightly incorrect or, in some cases, totally wrong. Let’ s set the record straight and clear away all the old wives’ tales about acid rain. With that accomplished, you should be able to explain to your customers what it’ s all about.

WHAT IS ACID RAIN?

Manufacturing plants, power-generating plants, internal combustion engines, jet engines, etc. all produce sulfuric dioxides, which are released in their exhaust fumes. Smog, well known in major cities, contains these chemicals. When smog settles on a surface such as an automobile fender it is known as industrial fallout, or IFO. When ozone, water and heat are applied to IFO it becomes acid rain, right on the paint’ s surface.

You may ask, “Don’ t catalytic converters on our cars get rid of sulfuric emissions?” Only partially . Whatever changes the converter accomplishes in the sulfuric compounds are reversed by the effect of ozone and water.

Nitric oxides are additional acid rain components. The nitrics were originally thought to be a large part of the problem. However, recent data have shown they are not a real contributor to acid rain problems on vehicle paint finishes . there are, of course, exceptions.

While all manufacturing plants contribute to the nationwide pollution problem, one type stands out as an example of a sever localized producer of acidic contaminates . paper or pulp mills. These mills use an acidic process to break down wood fiber. A major portion of the acid compounds utilized is nitric acid. The nitric acids combine with other acids emanating from the process to create a mini acid-rain belt in the area around the facility.

When the emitted acids combine with particulate matter and then settle on an automobile finish, severe acid etching may take place in a very short period of time.

As a result of this localized pollution problem, many paper mills have a car wash on site so employees can remove the acid compounds from their vehicles at the end of their work shift. Others contract with a quality local car wash to clean their employees’ vehicles.

A far worse emission is hydrazine. This extremely active acid is a component of jet fuel. So a vehicle parked regularly around a major airport or in high-usage flight paths will be subjected to hydrazine acids on its painted surfaces. Hydrazine is extremely reactive to oxidizers such as ozone.

An oxidizer is any compound that spontaneously emits oxygen either at room temperature or under slight heating. Many chemical compounds react vigorously at ambient temperatures as the oxidizing process takes place. Hydrazine, due to its molecular chain of hydrogen and nitrogen atoms, reacts violently, eating at any surface where it is concentrated. Any of us who took basic chemistry in high school or college remembers our instructor’ s caution: “Always add the acid to the water . never, never add the water to the acid!”

So what’ s that have to do with acid getting on a car’ s paint?

Here’s what is so important to our understanding of acid rain and protecting the paint and reducing or eliminating its effect on the paint film.

When acid rain lands on the paint film surface, it does no damage! That’ s right; it does not hurt it one bit! However..
The water evaporates from the paint film, leaving behind dry concentrates of the acid compounds, hydrazine etc. We now have a dioxide, or dry substance of the compound. The vehicle is subjected to water in the form of dew, rain, and the like. The acids are no longer dry. Water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Oxygen is an oxidizer. Ozone is an allotropic form of oxygen, an oxidizer.
The acid compounds start penetrating into the paint film and concentrating more and more each time the vehicle gets wet with plain water. Each time, these acid compounds eat away more of the paint’ s resin system, the former and binder of the paint system. If you look at a highly- magnified cut-away of a base/clear-coat paint system, it resembles a sponge. The resin system is what holds the sponge together That is why acid rain damage is seen as an etch or pit. Part of the system has been corrosively eaten away.
Let’s now put all of this into perspective:

Acids are generated by our industrial processes, whether in California, New Hampshire or Montreal.
These acids mainly cause paint damage when they concentrate and are re-exposed to water, ozone and heat.
Simply rinsing a vehicle with deionized water or tap water activates the acid concentrates.
The acid concentrates eat away the paint, creating discoloring, etches, and pits, which most consumers and even car care professionals think are water spots.
WEATHER

“El Niño” pumps warm, moist air into its area. If conditions are in sync with the jet stream, it pulls more warm, moist air out of the gulf right up through the center of the United States and Canada. Current projections by some weather observers are for 1997 to produce an El Ni&ntildeo pattern. Acid rain may very well be extremely active this year; resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in paint damage.

As “El Niño” travels, it picks up industrial pollutants and generates acid rain. El Ni&ntildeo causes quick, short warm rains as well as heavy storms, The quick warm rains are more of a problem because:

They deposit the acid-laden rain on vehicles that have warm or hot surfaces.
Since the vehicles are warm or hot, the paint film is softer and more porous and allows the acids to penetrate into the film or lock onto it.
The water quickly evaporates, leaving the acid in a concentrated form.
It rains again and the process starts all over but in a more concentrated form.
All the dark colored cars start showing “water spots” and then discolored spots as the acid rain progressively etches and pits. Eventually even the white and light colored cars start to show the same damage.
Everybody gets mad at the automobile manufacturers and paint suppliers because they think the damage results from poor paint.
Everybody is wrong — there is nothing wrong with the paint — they just don’t know what’s happening.
You do-now! But what do you do about it?
Saving the paint from the dreaded acid rain is really very simple, and everyone can do it.
Automobile manufacturers use transit coating or a white plastic sheet to protect the vehicle during transportation against the damaging effects of environmental pollutants. But what can we do once the protective covering is removed? Read on, there is an answer.
HOW TO SAVE YOUR PAINT FINISH

Have the paint “decontaminated” with an approved chemical system. It is a simple washing process, performed by trained certified professionals. It does absolutely no good to buff, polish, wax or paint-seal a vehicle that has been exposed to acid rain. Remember, the paint is like a sponge. The acids enter the sponge and are concentrated. Every time the vehicle gets wet, some moisture penetrates the sponge and reactivates them. The acids must be removed or, like that pink rabbit banging away at his drum, they’ll just keep going and going, eating away at the paint.
Once the paint has been decontaminated, have a high quality polymer paint sealant properly and professionally applied. Quality products contain polymers, co-polymers and amino functional resins. These components are heat and detergent resistant, and anti-corrosive. In other words, they fight off the effects of corrosives such as acid rain, the acid in bird droppings and industrial pollutants found in IFO.
Have your vehicle washed at least once a week. Regular washing is perhaps the most effective deterrent (when combined with a quality polymer paint sealant) against acid rain.
Remember: A little more time and a few more cents spent on regular maintenance of you vehicle could save you thousands of dollars later.

Head of California's Cap and Trade Offsets Program: Cap and Trade Won't Work for Climate, It's a Scam

Paul Krugman argues that cap and trade worked to reduce sulfur dioxide and stop acid rain, and so it will work to reduce C02.

However, two EPA lawyers with more than 40 years of cumulative experience – including the guy who has been head of California's cap and trade offset programs for more than 20 years – say that sulfur dioxide was different, and that cap and trade for climate is a scam which only benefits the financial players.

Specifically, they point out that:

• Cap and trade was tried in Europe, but ended up raising energy prices, creating volatility, produced few greenhouse gas reductions, but made billions for the financial players

• Even the guy who invented the cap and trade concept doesn't think it will work in regards to climate change (see this and this)

• Carbon offsets – which are part of the cap and trade plan – increase pollution

• One reason that offsets lead to more pollution is that investors fight to keep toxic chemicals legal, so they can make more money off of trading the offsets

• Like subprime mortgages and other creative financial instruments which brought us the economic crisis, carbon offsets lack integrity and don't work (see this)

Sony confirms PSP Minis for PS3 // News

Sony has confirmed that PSP Minis will be compatible with the PlayStation 3 from December 17. The next PS3 firmware updat…

Gamescom confirmed for August 2010 // News

Koelnmesse, the event location that hosted the inaugural Gamescom consumer show in Cologne this year, has announced its i…

Firemint tops Aussie awards // News

The winners of the GDAA Industry Awards have been announced, with Firemint taking home three awards for its iPhone title…

WTF? Cap and trade woman invented credit default swaps

Tuesday, 12/8/2009 – 11:56 am by Lynn Parramore | 2 Comments

By now you know that risky derivatives, particularly credit default swaps, are the financial Frankenproducts that caused the economic meltdown.

But here’s something you might not know: Blythe Masters, the woman who invented CDSs, is now turning her genius to carbon trading at JP Morgan. A recent posting on Naked Capitalism shines a light on the danger of a carbon trading schemed centered around derivatives.

In an email to me this morning,  Marshall Auerback noted that Copenhagen is looking like a “big boondoggle for Wall Street.” The climate change conference, he noted, is “dressed up as being wonderful for the environment, much as financial deregulation was celebrated as the ‘democratisation of credit’.”

Climate change Wall Street can believe in?

European Cap-And-Trade Example

Europe was the first to do carbon cap-and-trade, four years ago.

(Photo courtesy of NASA)

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it's
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Info from the European Union

Wikipedia's page on the European system

Producer: Liam Moriarty
Release Date: December 8, 2009
Running Time: 3:36

Just when you think the fictional economy cannot get any worse, we get this. The Cap & Trade is based on a new derivatives market. Oh gee! Just what the nation needs, yet another fictional mathematics market so a few traders can put the entire global economy at risk!

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Guess what this altruistic market value is? Between $300 billion to $2 trillion. We noted earlier the plan to create a new derivatives market with Cap & Trade. This post has many details, including legislation on what's going on under the guise of helping the environment.

Meanwhile, Naked Capitalism is plain calling Cap & Trade a Scam.

Gets better. Zero Hedge has an alarming post,

The need for a green revolution is here! The International Day of Climate Action in October, along with this week’s beginning of the Copenhagen United Nations Climate Summit, is the start of the global revolution. While reports are that no official binding progress will occur during this meeting,  what is guaranteed is that people are paying attention.

Cap and trade is a scheme being bounced around by many people for a quick solution to our climate crisis. This system needs to have a thorough review process before we sign the dotted line, not just in our own country, but as a world in agreement.

Watch “The Story of Cap and Trade” (from “The Story of Stuff”) for an easy-to-understand guide as to why cap and trade is bad for climate change and our economy.

Video after the break:

Posted in Green Community | Leave a comment

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Cap-and-Trade Is Not a Jobs Program   [Greg Pollowitz]

Josh Barro of the Manhattan Institute has a good analysis of the recent “Green” summit at the White House. His conclusion:

But whatever it is, Cap and Trade is not a jobs program. This should be obvious. If the Obama Administration argued that we should further complicate the tax code, so as to create more jobs for lawyers and accountants, they would be laughed out of the room. The fact that people must work harder to comply with new regulations is a cost of such policies, not a benefit.

The Administration's upside-down approach to job creation isn't limited to the Green Jobs mirage. In his opening remarks at the jobs summit, Obama once again hailed Cash for Clunkers as a success the Administration should build on for future job creation. The program was a “success” inasmuch as the government successfully got consumers to accept $3 billion in free money. It was not a cost-effective economic growth or job creation measure — in fact, Edmunds.com estimates that it cost taxpayers $24,000 for every new car sale generated.

Not every idea advanced at the summit was bad — participants talked about the need to simplify regulations, improve American tax competitiveness, and increase openness of foreign markets. Even President Obama admitted that “true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.” But if Obama realizes the private sector must lead the recovery, why is he proposing to burden it with more taxes, more government spending, and more regulation? True economic recovery will only come when the Administration realizes that regulation does not create jobs.

12/08 10:05 AMShare

Righties never betray their own principles, because they don’t have any principles. The closest thing they’ve got to a principle is the knee-jerk, Pavlovian opposition to anything that can be labeled “liberal,” “progressive” or “democratic,” either capitalized or not.

I bring this up because Paul Krugman writes,

The truth is that conservatives who predict economic doom if we try to fight climate change are betraying their own principles. They claim to believe that capitalism is infinitely adaptable, that the magic of the marketplace can deal with any problem. But for some reason they insist that cap and trade — a system specifically designed to bring the power of market incentives to bear on environmental problems — can’t work.

You know that the teabagbots who wave “down with cap and tax” signs at town hall meetings couldn’t explain what the “cap and trade” program is even if you gave them the Cliff’s notes and a half hour to study them. The truth is that the cap and trade model is probably the most conservative (in the dictionary sense of the word) and business-friendly means anyone has come up with to bring down carbon emissions. It challenges industries to come up with their own solutions and then rewards innovation and results.

As I see it, the alternatives are (1) doing nothing, or (2) what Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy calls “command and control through the existing Clean Air Act,” which in the current political climate is about as likely to happen as Holsteins climbing trees. In fact, some on the Left are opposed to cap and trade because it is too business friendly. They charge that it will turn into another way for the financial sector to make a lot of money while screwing the rest of us.

But our captains of industry prefer Option 1, not doing anything. I suspect they plan to pull an Auto Industry — keep on as if there’s no problem and hope the crash doesn’t come until they’ve retired. And then government can bail out whatever poor sucker is running the company when that happens.

However, Juliet Eilperin writes for the Washington Post that the

Obama administration will formally declare Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation, sources familiar with the process said. …

…It could trigger a series of federal regulations affecting polluters, from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.

My guess is that if they thought the Obama Administration might really hit them with stringent regulations, the captains of industry will suddenly decide cap and trade isn’t so bad.

Right wing propaganda to the contrary, cap and trade is proving to be a success in Europe. Krugman also says,

The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today’s fight over climate change. Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.

But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost.

In honor of the ClimateGate scandal, I would like to dedicate this article to the great climate hoaxes of the twentieth century.

“The longer the planners delay, the more difficult they will find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

Can you guess who made the above statement?  Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama?  No, this quote came from a Newsweek article printed on April 28, 1975.  The piece centered around the impending man-made ice age.  The article continues, “ ‘A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,’ warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ‘because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.’ ”

Modern day  scientists now claim that the global cooling scare of the 70’s was media generated, but the facts tell a different story.  Global cooling predictions appeared in scientific journals and conferences.  The New York Times, Washington Times, Time Magazine, and others ran numerous stories which quoted some of the top minds in climate research. For example, “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.” – NASA scientist S.I. Rasool in the Washington Times July 9, 1971.  As revealed in the 1977 book ” The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of a New Ice Age,” even the CIA was preparing for what was considered “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years.”  There is a plethora of alarmist quotes to choose from.

Even stranger than the similarity that these statements bare to modern day climate rhetoric, is the number of  global warming “experts” that once pushed the ice age theory.  One example is Obama appointed “Science Czar” John Holdren.  In 1971, he contributed an essay for the book ” Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man.”  The sixth chapter, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide” was written by John Holdren and his colleague Paul Ehrlich.  In it, they warn of the coming man-made cooling disaster.  There are two parts, in particular, which I would like to point out:

1. ” A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface,through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.”-  Although we are now told that “urbanization” and “deforestation” cause the planet to warm, the same people once claimed it cause global cooling.
2. “Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by extra weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history”- That’s funny.  I thought melting ice caps caused tidal waves and rising sea levels.  Apparently, we can’t let that ice get too thick either.

And how about some of those other ecological scares? Remember when acid rain was going to destroy everything on the earth’s surface.  As a grade-school child, I was terrified that one day it would get so bad we’d all have to live underground or risk being dissolved in a spring shower.   What about the nuclear winter and nuclear summer that would be brought about by weapons tests and oil fires?  How about the disappearing Ozone layer?  Harold Johnston (He invented the nitrogen-oxides-destroy-the-ozone-theory after the original suspect, water vapor, had been cleared.) told us that “all animals of the world would be blinded if they ventured out during the daytime.”   Now we are supposed to believe that too many greenhouse gases (including too much ozone) are causing the planet to warm, despite the fact that temperatures have been dropping over the last few years?  Come on guys, we managed to survive the other apocalyptic climate “disasters” without ruining the economy, we can do it again.  Besides we need to start preparing for the coming radioactive fog crisis, or whatever the enivro-loons are planning next.

For all you need to know on ClimateGate:

The Telegraph (UK)

The Telegraph2 (UK)

U.S. Senate

Washington Times

The Daily Express (UK)

Adirondack Citizen says: A guest commentary in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise makes a couple of good points, especially re-purposing petroleum but there is no such thing as clean coal. However, clean coal burning technology to reduce emissions can be achieved. Nevertheless, the emphasis on carbon reduction is ridiculous. Science has not shown that carbon is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and in fact carbon dioxide is such a small percentage of our atmosphere that working to reduce it is a truly worthless endeavor. What needs to be scrubbed from coal burning emissions is the sulfur, nitrogen and mercury that are killing our brook trout, red spruce and common loons. It’s too bad the Wild Center, Paul Smith’s College, Adirondack Council and other Adirondack environmental advocates have bought into consensus instead of science. How about doing something that will actually benefit our dying ecosystems?

Is it strange that an economist at the Office of Management and Budget would attack the cost of a new clean air rule? Not when you consider the background of the economist, Randall Lutter, who is assigned to OMB from the Food and Drug Administration.

According to emails obtained by the Washington Post, statements from Lutter such as: “Are these really instances of zero-cost emissions reductions, or are they instead instances of emissions reductions that should already be in the baseline?” provide agencies like EPA cover in weakening regulations that protect the public.

But before Lutter was at FDA, he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, which famously offered scientists $10,000 to undermine the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007. The AEI has taken aim at EPA’s role in combating climate change, a recent post on AEI’s Enterprise blog compared EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Dirty Harry: “You can just see Jackson standing there with a .44 magnum in her hand, and a steely glint in her eye, telling industry “You’ve got to ask yourself one question, ‘do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”

And Lutter has committed many of his own distortions of regulatory recommendations, including using a “willingness to pay” estimate to challenge a lead exposure rule. Lutter asks how much parents would pay to subject their children to dangerous chelation therapy, used only on those exposed to severe metal poisoning. He does not estimate lost income due to reduced IQ of children exposed to elevated lead, or the harm that chelation therapy does in terms of leeching calcium from bones.

It’s not hard to believe that someone who thinks chelation is a reasonable countermeasure for lead exposure might grasp at something like geoengineering as a means to combat climate change. Geoengineering – the idea that to combat a massive-scale distortion of natural climate patterns is to stage a massive-scale distortion of natural climate patterns – captures the quick fix set. But, the technology poses many additional risks, and is by no means a replacement for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Lena Pons is a transportation policy analyst for Public Citizen.

Flickr photo by davipt.

“Acid rain” is a broad term referring to a mixture of wet and dry deposition (deposited material) from the atmosphere containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids. The precursors, or chemical forerunners, of acid rain formation result from both natural sources, such as volcanoes and decaying vegetation, and man-made sources, primarily emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) resulting from fossil fuel combustion. In the United States, roughly 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx come from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels, like coal. Acid rain occurs when these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. When sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are released from power plants and other sources, prevailing winds blow these compounds across state and national borders, sometimes over hundreds of miles.

Flow chart showing dry and wet deposition processes. If you have difficulty viewing this graphic, or need additional information, contact Cindy Walke, Web Manager, at 202-343-9194.

Wet Deposition

Wet deposition refers to acidic rain, fog, and snow. If the acid chemicals in the air are blown into areas where the weather is wet, the acids can fall to the ground in the form of rain, snow, fog, or mist. As this acidic water flows over and through the ground, it affects a variety of plants and animals. The strength of the effects depends on several factors, including how acidic the water is; the chemistry and buffering capacity of the soils involved; and the types of fish, trees, and other living things that rely on the water.

Dry Deposition

In areas where the weather is dry, the acid chemicals may become incorporated into dust or smoke and fall to the ground through dry deposition, sticking to the ground, buildings, homes, cars, and trees. Dry deposited gases and particles can be washed from these surfaces by rainstorms, leading to increased runoff. This runoff water makes the resulting mixture more acidic. About half of the acidity in the atmosphere falls back to earth through dry deposition.

Exposição bacanérrima rolando no Studio Dalmau. Acid Rain de Dede Fedrizzi, fotógrafo de moda e afins, revela lindas mulheres em diversos lugares do mundo. A exposição passou por Londres, Milão, NY, Paris, Zurich e agora São Paulo, até 10 de novembro.

US EPA
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/quarterlytracking.html

[Press release] New interactive tracking tools are now available on EPA’s Web site to help the public follow nation-wide changes in sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions from coal-fired power plants. Using interactive charts and Google Earth satellite maps, the public can now observe recent changes in SO₂ emissions and other indicators at individual coal-fired power plants in the Acid Rain Program.

The Acid Rain Program was established under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requiring power plants to reduce emissions of SO₂ and nitrogen oxides (NO_x)—the primary causes of acid rain. Since 1995, the program has achieved significant environmental and public health benefits. In 2008, electric generating units subject to the market-based cap and trade SO₂ program emitted 7.6 million tons of SO₂, well below the current annual emission cap of 9.5 million tons.

You must download Google Earth.

Oh the weather is cold and frightful – and government induced… For what is reported as the 2nd time this season alone, Beijing has been hit by a snowstorm that is the direct result of seeding the clouds. Via whatever means, the clouds are laced with chemicals to create rain – or in the case of winter – snow. During the Olympics, this method was employed to encourage rain showers in order to wash away the summer dust and smog residue of Summer.

I am not sure how I feel about them doing something like this. On one hand I can see where they would need to start taking measures to deal with an ongoing drought affecting the countries north – but at what cost? Would you want to be drinking water from clouds that is the results of chemicals being added to them? The water is already not drinkable – bottled water being the only option. China is affected by pollution caused acid-rain as is, which when you think of it going into the ground that’s being used to grow the majority of the food…well, I think down the track, this is all going to raise its ugly head, but in a big, nasty way.

A Forest Stewardship Council supporter recently messaged me of his thoughts on Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. Below is his message:

Travis, thank you for posting this. I find the hype of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) relatively the “Greatest Scientific Swindle of all Time”. Let me explain.

Firstly, my background as a former Montana EPA scientist and a person who spent his entire career in the forest products industry worldwide I have a few credible statements to make on this issue. I currently am lobbying for the repeal of AB32, the California’s law on AGW that will most certainly devastate what is left of California’s economy in the years to come with cost estimates currently of 189 billion dollars in a trillion dollar yearly economy. California is already strapped with a 480 billion dollar cost of regulatory laws and the addition of AB32 costs and the federal Cap N Trade legislation spells only one thing, doom for Californians.

Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” is largely based on lies and untruths and the 30 or so arguments of the movie were proven false in an English court as they did not elevate to the level of scientific evidence or fact. I will mention in this short essay only one falsehood and that is the preconceived idea of the polar bear population used in the movie to show that these creatures are dying due to AGW. That is just plain false and the two bears used as Gore’s poster children were later seen swimming away to shore and off they went. Seen by the person, a researcher who took the picture in the first place. Four other bears were seen dead and died due to a massive storm in the area, not because of AGW.

It seems facts don’t mean anything to the media as they promote this hysteria for reasons of money, greed, and ratings but the bottom line, it is working and gullible people are buying this nonsense. I am not one of them.

It appears to often that the word “integrity” no longer applies to scientific research and credibility and one has to ask if “science should do no harm” as it certainly is in the case of the AGW hoax to the people of the world. What kind of harm, economic harm to those who are losing their jobs and careers over just another environmental hoax that we have seen so often in the past.

Remember the Alar apple scare? The acid rain scare, the world was heading into an ice age in the 1970’s, and many others too numerous to mention. In fact every decade, there is a new global fad that sweeps the globe causing much mayhem and destruction to the people of this globe.

Global warming is a natural occurrance, a cycle if you wish as this biosphere has experienced many times over in it’s 5-6 billion year existence. We cannot nor should we try to upset the balance of this cycle, to try and control climate or weather is just inconceivable to this person’s eyes.

We must take care of our planet and prevent pollution and the over population of the human species, but to tear down the economic fabric over a science that is not settled is beyond this author’s understanding.

Science should do no harm. We all need to get back to this premise…. immediately before it is too late and chaos sweeps the land.
-Jeff Lassle

Travis Stein
SVP of Sales
The Odee Company est. 1923
travis@odeecompany.com

> Adirondack youth to hold conference on climate change

Adirondack Citizen says:
   When will the Wild Center and other Adirondack organizations finally get it? ACID RAIN is killing our ecosystems! Instead of enlightening our youth on the Adirondacks most pressing environmental problem, kids are being indoctrinated with an environmental myth. 
   Climate change theory is based on consensus, not science and has been discredited at the highest levels of scientific study. I guess these kids won’t learn that until Cap & Trade has destroyed our economy for no other reason than to generate revenue for the government.

“It’s among the filthiest fuel known to mankind — literally the sludge at the bottom of the barrel after the refining process,” 
> Deal struck on Great Lakes ship pollution

I once hiked across a glacier that straddled the border between Austria and Italy. The scenery was cold, stark and beautiful. The border was marked only by an empty wooden guard shack about the size of a telephone booth, but with a beautifully ornate roof. I stood near the guard shack for a moment, listening to the icy wind howl and watching fluffy clouds blow over the border from southern Austria into northern Italy, just like I was.

Funny thing, wind. It blows from city to city, country to country, over oceans and continents, from distant places to here, and from here to destinations unknown.  Wind has no regard for borders, for what happens to be on the ground below, or for what it carries along: birds, balloons, snowflakes, storm clouds, smoke from barbecues, smoke from chemical factories, exhaust from cars, exhaust from lawn mowers, evaporation from lakes, evaporation from urine ponds at dairy farms. All this enters the air and travels around the world without a ticket or a passport. Not all of it stays in the air of course; some of it mixes with water in the atmosphere and showers down all over you as rain or sleet or snow. Much of what is in the air then waters the food we eat. It enters our water supply. It enters us.

I don’t think I want all that in my food, in my water, or in me. Corporate America has a wonderful environmental track record, and most American citizens are bicycle-commuting vegans, so I suppose this should be nothing to worry about.

Oh wait – I nearly forgot about wind not needing a passport though. This means that everything entering the air in, say, China for example, can be carried along on the wind and deposited here. That makes it harder for us to control the cleanliness of our air and environment in general. It also means that what we do here in consumer-driven America can have an absolutely devastating impact on other places in the world. Our selfish wasting of the earth’s resources can mean that people we have never met may face climate catastrophes before we do.

What doesn’t come down as acid rain – or acid sleet or acid snow – can rise above the cloud layer of our atmosphere. Being above the clouds sounds like it would be such a clean and untouched place, but over the years so many gases have risen up there that it has become very crowded. These gases that are crowding up there now are referred to as greenhouse gases, and there are so many of them up there now that two horrible things have happened. First, the overcrowding up there means that heat can’t escape from the earth, so our temperatures are slowly rising. This means, among other things, that our massive polar ice caps are melting. That’s a huge amount of ice, and when you melt all that into the ocean it means more water. More water in the oceans means that more land will be buried under water. This is happening as we speak. Second, the earth’s atmosphere is something like a balloon. All the overcrowding up there means that there is so much pressure on the balloon that it has popped several times and there are now holes in it. This is a big problem, because the balloon was our sunscreen. When there are holes in the sunscreen, more harmful UV rays get in that can damage us, other animals, and plants. They can also impact temperature change, melting those ice caps, and turning green areas into deserts.

Acid rain and greenhouse gases are different things with similar impacts, but they have one remarkable thing in common: their cause.

Us.

This is actually good news. Because we created the problem, we can also fix it. Our only real obstacles are getting past the lethargy of people who who can’t see past their television screens, getting past the greed of corporations who can’t see past their short term profits, and getting past the corruption of politicians who accept donations from those corporations. In other words, everyone wants to save the world, so this should be easy.

Let me ask you a question: doctors have established goals for our cholesterol, blood pressure, and weight. Do you know anyone who has exceeded any of those goals? I think I could name one or two people.

The fact is, exceeding those goals does not mean that the doctor’s patient dies immediately. There are two types of doctors: those that succumb to the prescription drug industry and simply tell the patient to address the issue with the industry’s drug. The patient will then likely end up taking the drug for many years, making wonderful profits for the drug company. Then there are the wise doctors who explain to the patient what life style habits likely led to the problem in the first place and can thus be changed in order to reverse it. In this way it may be possible to address the health issue with no drugs at all, or to take them for only a short time.

I bring up this point because addressing climate change is exactly the same. The majority of doctors are like the first one above, and the majority of people are waiting for some magic pill that will fix the environment. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way – not for our health, and not for the environment either.

The most common greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Climate scientists set a health goal of 350 parts per million for earth that we have exceeded. We are currently at 387 ppm, and if this number continues to rise the impact will be devastating. Weather patterns will continue to shift; global temperature will continue to warm; coastal areas will flood; animals, including people, will be displaced; and some species may become extinct. The good news is that we can come down from 387 ppm – but there is no magic pill. We need to address the life style habits that led to the problem in the first place in order to reverse it.

Today is a very special day, a day for increased climate change awareness around the world, a day that more and more people are learning about the importance of returning the earth to CO2 levels below 350. Let’s be clear about this: every one of us has played a part in damaging the environment, so every one of us needs to change to a healthier lifestyle – one that not only helps reverse the damage, but also helps prevents future damage. Don’t let the news scare you; much of what we need to do is actually pretty easy. Visit 350.org for more information.

Just hours ago the BBC and their partner Rockhopper TV released the first episode of Hot Cities. It provides a fascinating look at Lagos, Nigeria, the city on which I focused much of my masters degree work. Lagos truly is a global leader, just perhaps from a different perspective than we normally see in Western media. It was also nice to see the direct connection made between our wasteful personal lifestyles or corporate practices, and the impacts these have on other areas around the world. Polluting the air in one city, for example, pollutes the world’s air, not just that city’s air, and as a result the impact of that pollution is felt worldwide. Let’s hope that this realization occurs to politicians before joining together for the coming climate talks in Copenhagen. You can view Hot Cities online here.

Seem far-fetched?  Alarmist?  Let me tell you a little story.  When I was a boy we sometimes spent part of the summer on a lake in upstate New York.  The lake had fish, so many of them in fact that some of them were actually dumb enough to allow themselves to be caught by even such a poor fisherperson as I was at that age.

Many years later, as an adult, I spent a few days at a friend’s cabin on the Chain Lakes, north of Utica.  Expecting a few days of glorious fishing, I brought plenty of gear along, only to have my friend tell me that there hadn’t been a fish in the Chain Lakes for at least a decade!  Acid rain had killed them all years before, all across upstate New York, by attacking the base of the food chain in the lakes.  I wonder who caught the last fish!

The fish are back now, although it took many years of aggressive enforcement of environmental laws, and people are enjoying them again.  Anyone with a brain is concerned about the effects of global warning on crops, water levels and our food supply, but how many are considering the effects of too much Carbon Dioxide on the oceans.  Think they’re too big to be effected?  Think again!  When CO2 dissolves in seawater, one of the resulting compounds is Carbonic acid, which, just like acid rain, attacks the base of the ocean food chain.  The following documentary explores the problem and suggests some mitigating possibilities.

WE DON’T LIVE HERE ANY MORE.

THE SWELLCO & SWELLCO VIDEO CIRCUS IS MOVING TO A PRIVATE SERVER AND AN UPGRADED & EXPANDED SITE.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE NEW SWELLCO200.COM SITE.

A cluster of vital organs
with profound prophetic potential
was planted in the dirt
twenty-six years ago today.
Nourished by a diet of
acid rain
and intermittent blazing sunshine,
a strange and unstable seedling
was born.

Here mother!
I picked you a beautiful weed!

Yes, indeed.
The dandelion is a sight to behold
in all her un-glory
and poison
and pitiful waste
of unrooted
undisciplined
potted potential.

> State of the Park - from the Adirondack Council’s perspective.
Note: While Adirondack Citizen and Adirondack Council find common ground on some issues, we are also on the opposite sides of other issues.

> Adirondack Council recognized for acid rain data collection efforts

> Acid rain amendment not in Senate cap-trade bill
Adirondack Citizen says:
   John McHugh sold his vote (and what was left of his integrity) for the Army Secretary job and what did we, his Adirondack constituents, get in return to help fight the biggest threat to Adirondack ecosystems? Nothing. No acid rain legislation at all!
   We got zip. Zero. Nada. But should we really have expected anything more from a say-anything empty suit whose only loyalty is to himself and his own self-aggrandizement? Obviously not.  Thanks for nothing John!