The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

Good, I hope it gets warm and stays warm.

[bigruss]

This will be the Logan Square Farmer's Market in 2075:

 

Finally, some decent hills in the city to go skiing on.

[Y2HH]

anticipatory strike here... please no one feed the troll. He's looking for a reaction.

 

[BigSqwert]

New Tesla 2.5 roadster gets 119 MPGe rating, the best in the world. Now if I could afford one.

[Y2HH]

New Tesla 2.5 roadster gets 119 MPGe rating, the best in the world. Now if I could afford one.

 

Update: We just heard from the EPA, which clarified that this is not their official rating for the Roadster 2.5. These numbers are Tesla's, and the window sticker itself is a mockup - not a legitimate sticker from the EPA. Still, if you'd like to see it, it's down after the break.

 

Oops.

[Balta1701]

Continuing the theme of Republicans doing things solely to piss off Liberals...NJ Governor Chris Christie has pulled out of a 3 year New England only carbon credit trading program, which used the funds raised to invest in clean energy projects.

In a news conference announcing the withdrawal, Christie cited a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection report that says the state's emissions had dropped below the state limit set for 2020, which he attributed to the state relying more on natural gas and less on coal for its energy needs.

 

A RFFI report from February said that the states had invested 52 percent of a total $789.2 million raised in the auctions into energy efficiency, 11 percent into renewable energy, 14 percent in energy bill payment assistance and another 1 percent for other greenhouse gas reduction programs.

 

But the price of allowances has dropped from $3.07 at the first auction in 2008 to $1.89 at the last auction in March. Christie said the allowances "were never expensive enough to change behavior as they were intended to and ultimately fuel different choices."

 

New Jersey's investments included more than $29 million for 12 large-scale commercial and industrial renewable-energy and energy-efficiency projects, expected to generate enough electricity annually to power more than 19,600 typical households in the state each year.

 

New Jersey households pay $3.24 on average toward RGGI on their utility bills, environmental group Environment New Jersey says.

 

While acknowledging that climate change "is real and it's impacting our state," Christie said the program isn't effective in reducing greenhouse gases and is unlikely to be in the future. "The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It is a failure."

 

In a joint statement, the remaining nine states stressed their commitment to the initiative.

 

"With each state exercising its independent authority to achieve low-cost greenhouse gas emissions reductions, the RGGI market-based program has widespread support across the region and will continue," it said.

 

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Re.../#ixzz1NcFG5tTR

[Balta1701]

For once, the end of an Onion article is better than the title.

[Balta1701]

Tests starting to show that Corexit, BP's favorite dispersant last year, does not cause an increase in the breakdown rate of oil, and that the mixture of Corexit and oil is actually worse for biology than the undispersed oil alone.

The combination of oil and Corexit, the chemical BP used to dissolve the slick, is more toxic to tiny plants and animals than the oil in most cases, according to preliminary research by several Florida scientists. And the chemicals may not have broken down the oil as well as expected.

 

Scientists reported some of their early findings last week at a Florida Institute of Oceanography conference at the University of Central Florida. The researchers were funded a year ago through a $10 million BP grant.

 

The initial findings require more research for scientists to reach definitive conclusions. But scientists said they were struck by the studies so far.

 

They added BP oil to a jar of sea water and saw all the oil float to the top. After adding a little Corexit to the mix, the entire bottle of water turned the color of dark coffee.

 

In theory, the chemically dissolved oil should be a feast for bacteria that would break down some of the most harmful products in the oil.

 

But the Corexit may not have done its job properly, said Wade Jeffrey, a biologist with the University of West Florida's Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation.

 

"So far — and this is very preliminary — we're not seeing a big difference," Jeffrey said. "The way we're doing the experiment, the Corexit does not seem to facilitate the degradation of the oil."

 

Additionally, the Corexit and oil mixture tends to be more toxic to phytoplankton — tiny microscopic plants — than the oil itself.

[Balta1701]

So, the Southern U.S. has gone from the ridiculous rain/storms in April to suddenly being socked in by high pressure and heat for the last week or so, with this weather pattern seemingly stuck here for a while.

 

The interesting thing for me is that the high pressure/high temperatures are basically surrounding the Gulf. It's just the start of hurricane season, but last year, we set a record here for the most 90 degree days in a single year, and we're already ahead of that pace. If this heat pattern stays in place for a few more weeks, it's going to pump a lot of extra energy into the Gulf waters if any large storm happens to find a path through them.

 

No guarantees, but that's my weather comment for the near future.

[mr_genius]

This will be the Logan Square Farmer's Market in 2075:

 

 

where will all the hipsters go?

[bigklita]

Honey Bees still disappearing at major levels.

[southsider2k5]

Honey Bees still disappearing at major levels.

 

Anyone else read the study tying this to cell phones?

[iamshack]

Anyone else read the study tying this to cell phones?

I didn't read the study, but I've heard about the connection, no pun intended. It's amazing to me that this isn't a bigger story, given that bees are such a crucial part of our ecosystem.

 

There is also a lot of buzz (jeesh, all these unintended puns) in Europe about the effects cell phones may have on our brains, however that seems to be getting swept under the carpet in the US as well.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't read the study, but I've heard about the connection, no pun intended. It's amazing to me that this isn't a bigger story, given that bees are such a crucial part of our ecosystem.

 

There is also a lot of buzz (jeesh, all these unintended puns) in Europe about the effects cell phones may have on our brains, however that seems to be getting swept under the carpet in the US as well.

 

Judging by the some of the people I see on their phones all of the time, it makes sense...

[Balta1701]

I didn't read the study, but I've heard about the connection, no pun intended. It's amazing to me that this isn't a bigger story, given that bees are such a crucial part of our ecosystem.

 

There is also a lot of buzz (jeesh, all these unintended puns) in Europe about the effects cell phones may have on our brains, however that seems to be getting swept under the carpet in the US as well.

You know why I've been skeptical about the "Links" of these things to cell phones? Although there has been cell phone expansion over the past few years, it's not as if there wasn't significant cell capacity a decade ago when there wasn't colony collapse disorder around. Furthermore, you'd expect geographic effects if there was a direct cell phone link...areas like around San Francisco should have huge problems while the Central Valley should be nearly spared, and I've never seen publications suggesting a geographic effect of cities on those.

 

Same thing for the reports about brain damage. People have been using cellular phone systems for 30 years...and honestly I'd bet that the older versions were much stronger microwave emitters than the recent versions, yet we haven't seen a huge spike in brain cancer over the last decade as far as I know. There ought to be a correlation here with something...if cell phone use is causing damage, then you ought to see correlations between cell phone use and the effects of that damage, either in time or in space or based on usage. If someone came out and alleged a correlation between cell phone use and autism rates, which have skyrocketed over the past 30 years, that would intrigue me a lot more, for example.

[iamshack]

You know why I've been skeptical about the "Links" of these things to cell phones? Although there has been cell phone expansion over the past few years, it's not as if there wasn't significant cell capacity a decade ago when there wasn't colony collapse disorder around. Furthermore, you'd expect geographic effects if there was a direct cell phone link...areas like around San Francisco should have huge problems while the Central Valley should be nearly spared, and I've never seen publications suggesting a geographic effect of cities on those.

 

Same thing for the reports about brain damage. People have been using cellular phone systems for 30 years...and honestly I'd bet that the older versions were much stronger microwave emitters than the recent versions, yet we haven't seen a huge spike in brain cancer over the last decade as far as I know. There ought to be a correlation here with something...if cell phone use is causing damage, then you ought to see correlations between cell phone use and the effects of that damage, either in time or in space or based on usage. If someone came out and alleged a correlation between cell phone use and autism rates, which have skyrocketed over the past 30 years, that would intrigue me a lot more, for example.

I don't suggest that there is definitive proof for either issue, but it's a bit crazy to me that these topics are basically shunned in the US because the cell phone industry is afraid of the negative publicity.

 

One would think we'd have a right to know a little bit more about the potential links here...

[southsider2k5]

You know why I've been skeptical about the "Links" of these things to cell phones? Although there has been cell phone expansion over the past few years, it's not as if there wasn't significant cell capacity a decade ago when there wasn't colony collapse disorder around. Furthermore, you'd expect geographic effects if there was a direct cell phone link...areas like around San Francisco should have huge problems while the Central Valley should be nearly spared, and I've never seen publications suggesting a geographic effect of cities on those.

 

Same thing for the reports about brain damage. People have been using cellular phone systems for 30 years...and honestly I'd bet that the older versions were much stronger microwave emitters than the recent versions, yet we haven't seen a huge spike in brain cancer over the last decade as far as I know. There ought to be a correlation here with something...if cell phone use is causing damage, then you ought to see correlations between cell phone use and the effects of that damage, either in time or in space or based on usage. If someone came out and alleged a correlation between cell phone use and autism rates, which have skyrocketed over the past 30 years, that would intrigue me a lot more, for example.

 

Why autism? I don't see lots of babies using cellphones

[NorthSideSox72]

Two observations on cell phones and radiation...

 

1. With cell phones and all the other various radio and radio-like transmissions saturating the air in modern times, is anyone really surprised it would start having some detrimental effects?

 

2. Despite major breakthroughs for treating and preventing cancer, certain types of cancer continue to increase in frequency... let's ask this really simple question. If you wanted to give someone cancer, what's the easiest and most certain way to do it? Now, look around you, wherever you are at this moment. Look at all the things around you that produce some sort of radiation, and ask yourself how many of those things were around, say, 30-40 years ago. That gives you the answer to the mystery. Any one device has very low radiation... but we aren't around any one device, are we?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Two observations on cell phones and radiation...

 

1. With cell phones and all the other various radio and radio-like transmissions saturating the air in modern times, is anyone really surprised it would start having some detrimental effects?

 

2. Despite major breakthroughs for treating and preventing cancer, certain types of cancer continue to increase in frequency... let's ask this really simple question. If you wanted to give someone cancer, what's the easiest and most certain way to do it? Now, look around you, wherever you are at this moment. Look at all the things around you that produce some sort of radiation, and ask yourself how many of those things were around, say, 30-40 years ago. That gives you the answer to the mystery. Any one device has very low radiation... but we aren't around any one device, are we?

 

Has anyone looked to see if more people are getting cancer these days, or is it that medicine has allowed us to detect cancer better? I'd imagine it's the former, but I'd be curious to see how much screening/getting checked more often increases those numbers.

[NorthSideSox72]

Has anyone looked to see if more people are getting cancer these days, or is it that medicine has allowed us to detect cancer better? I'd imagine it's the former, but I'd be curious to see how much screening/getting checked more often increases those numbers.

Like, all cancers? Not sure, but I'd imagine someone keeps track of that number.

 

[bmags]

I don't suggest that there is definitive proof for either issue, but it's a bit crazy to me that these topics are basically shunned in the US because the cell phone industry is afraid of the negative publicity.

 

One would think we'd have a right to know a little bit more about the potential links here...

 

I'd hardly call them shunned, but these are very weak correlations.

[iamshack]

I'd hardly call them shunned, but these are very weak correlations.

So what would you call them?

 

And are they really that weak? Did you read the study?

[Balta1701]

Why autism? I don't see lots of babies using cellphones

Autism is one that comes to my mind because it's a brain-issue that has skyrocketed in occurrence the last few decades...and by all accounts it's not just better diagnosed now, it's actually happening a lot more.

 

That's the type of pattern you ought to see with some set of brain tumors for cell phones to be a causal factor.

[Balta1701]

Has anyone looked to see if more people are getting cancer these days, or is it that medicine has allowed us to detect cancer better? I'd imagine it's the former, but I'd be curious to see how much screening/getting checked more often increases those numbers.

Both are probably happening. We had this point during the Affordable Care Act discussion...the U.S. spends an inordinate amount of money diagnosing prostate issues compared to the UK, but the death rate from prostate cancer is very similar in the two countries, suggesting that the U.S. is diagnosing a lot more benign/non life threatening conditions. So yes, there are worldwide and overtime large shifts in diagnosis happening.

 

There are, however, also other environmental factors going on. New diseases do crop up in populations, in fact we're encouraging that with our overuse of antibiotics and factory farming. New chemicals are introduced into the environment every year from industry. New GMO crops have been introduced. Lifestyle changes (i.e. obesity) have happened. It's really difficult to isolate a specific cause by looking at a general population.

 

The rule of thumb here is that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but lack of correlation implies that causation is impossible.

[kapkomet]

Autism is one that comes to my mind because it's a brain-issue that has skyrocketed in occurrence the last few decades...and by all accounts it's not just better diagnosed now, it's actually happening a lot more.

 

That's the type of pattern you ought to see with some set of brain tumors for cell phones to be a causal factor.

 

 

Okay, but... babies aren't on the phones all the time, right? Or are you trying to say adult autism?