By Neil deMause
On April 14, a massive storm swept down out of the Rocky Mountains into the Midwest and South, spawning more than 150 tornadoes that killed 43 people across 16 states (Capital Weather Gang, 4/18/11). It was one of the largest weather catastrophes in United States history-but was soon upstaged by an even larger storm, the 2011 Super Outbreak that spread more than 300 tornadoes across 14 states from April 25 to 28 (including an all-time one-day record of 188 twisters on April 27), killing 339 people, including 41 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (CNN, 5/1/11).
It was an unprecedented string of severe weather: By mid-June, more than 1,000 tornadoes had killed 536 people (NOAA, 6/13/11), nearly as many deaths as in the entire preceding decade. And it was only natural to ask: Were we seeing the effects of climate change?
Most scientists would say yes, or at least "probably." The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change, a global scientific body that has been a target of conservatives despite a record of soft-pedaling its findings to avoid controversy (Extra!, 7/8/07), warned on February 2, 2007, "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." (In science-speak, "very likely" refers to a certainty of greater than 90 percent, and is as near as you get to a definitive conclusion.) Other forecasts (e.g., Environment America, 9/8/10) have projected that wet regions will receive record rainfall thanks to increasing evaporation, while dry ones get record drought, as climate patterns shift to accommodate the new normal.
Yet despite these dire predictions, U.S. media were hesitant to investigate the links between climate change and this spring's extreme weather. Much coverage settled for the cheap irony of contrasting extreme phenomena, as when NBC's Saturday Today show meteorologist Bill Karins (6/11/11) quipped:
Feast or famine's been the rule this spring. The northern half of the country, we've dealt with the heavy rain, the record snow pack that's now melting in the northern Rockies. That's causing the flooding. The southern half of the country, you would love some of that rain.
View the Original article
Saturday, 13 August 2011
Friday, 12 August 2011
Whole Paycheck and Organic Food Deserts: The Challenge
After decades of grassroots public education, battles to safeguard standards, and hard work, organic food and farming has become the fastest growing sector of U.S. agriculture. Organics have surged in popularity to become a $30 billion dollar industry in the United States, representing approximately four percent of total grocery store sales and 12% of fresh fruit and vegetable sales, growing at the rate of 10-20% a year, in comparison to a growth rate of 2-3% a year for so-called "conventional" (i.e. chemical and genetically engineered) food. According to a recent poll by National Public Radio the majority (58%) of Americans now prefer organic food.
View the Original article
View the Original article
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Subscription Produce Business Booming in Alaska
By Lisa Demer
When Sarah and River Bean cleared old timber to start their farm near Palmer more than two decades ago, one of their first chores was recruiting customers for the coming harvest. It was a way to build a base of buyers and make their love of farming a viable business.
Their customers, in turn, got fresh vegetables all summer long.
Turns out the Beans were on the leading edge of what's now a hot trend in Alaska. In a state once known for dreary produce aisles and few fruit options, customers from Adak to Anchorage are turning to a growing number of farm-to-table delivery services. Some are spending hundreds of dollars a year in exchange for boxes packed with local or organic produce.
In Anchorage, maybe you've seen a Full Circle truck pull into your neighborhood. Or stacks of Glacier Valley boxes at businesses around town waiting for customers to pick them up. Or people lined up in a downtown neighborhood every Wednesday afternoon for just-picked produce from the Bean family's Arctic Organics farm.
Business is growing fast in Alaska, say subscription produce operators, who charge anywhere from $35 to more than double that for a weekly box of fruits and veggies.
View the Original article
When Sarah and River Bean cleared old timber to start their farm near Palmer more than two decades ago, one of their first chores was recruiting customers for the coming harvest. It was a way to build a base of buyers and make their love of farming a viable business.
Their customers, in turn, got fresh vegetables all summer long.
Turns out the Beans were on the leading edge of what's now a hot trend in Alaska. In a state once known for dreary produce aisles and few fruit options, customers from Adak to Anchorage are turning to a growing number of farm-to-table delivery services. Some are spending hundreds of dollars a year in exchange for boxes packed with local or organic produce.
In Anchorage, maybe you've seen a Full Circle truck pull into your neighborhood. Or stacks of Glacier Valley boxes at businesses around town waiting for customers to pick them up. Or people lined up in a downtown neighborhood every Wednesday afternoon for just-picked produce from the Bean family's Arctic Organics farm.
Business is growing fast in Alaska, say subscription produce operators, who charge anywhere from $35 to more than double that for a weekly box of fruits and veggies.
View the Original article
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Breaking Point: Obama and the Death of the Democratic Party
By Jane Hamsher
According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security in exchange for GOP support for tax hikes. Lori Montgomery in the Post:
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action. As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
And Jay Carney's carefully chosen weasel-words today do not contradict this:
"There is no news here - the President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."
Nobody ever says they want to "cut" Social Security or Medicare. They want to "save" it. Just ask Pete Peterson, he wants to "save" it. Likewise AARP. They don't want reduced benefits for senior citizens, they want to "preserve" it for future generations. If they have an enormous customer base they can market private "add-on" accounts and other retirement products to when Social Security goes bye-bye, I guess that's just a happy coincidence.
View the Original article
According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, Obama is proposing cuts to Social Security in exchange for GOP support for tax hikes. Lori Montgomery in the Post:
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation's budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action. As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
And Jay Carney's carefully chosen weasel-words today do not contradict this:
"There is no news here - the President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."
Nobody ever says they want to "cut" Social Security or Medicare. They want to "save" it. Just ask Pete Peterson, he wants to "save" it. Likewise AARP. They don't want reduced benefits for senior citizens, they want to "preserve" it for future generations. If they have an enormous customer base they can market private "add-on" accounts and other retirement products to when Social Security goes bye-bye, I guess that's just a happy coincidence.
View the Original article
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?
By Tom Philpott
It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.
In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.
Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.
Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA's regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me.
View the Original article
It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.
In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.
Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.
Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA's regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me.
View the Original article
Monday, 8 August 2011
Secondhand Smoke Tied To Mental Health Problems In Kids: Study
By Catherine Pearson
Estimates suggest that anywhere between 4.8 and 5.5 million children in the U.S. live in households where they are exposed to secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk for multiple health problems. Now, new research suggests that secondhand smoke exposure can increase the odds of developing certain mental and behavioral disorders by 50 percent.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health looked at the data generated by a 2007 national health survey, analyzing the responses of the parents of guardians of more than 55,000 children ages 11 and younger from throughout the U.S. They found that children who were exposed to secondhand smoke were twice as likely to develop so-called neurobehavioral disorders -- including learning disabilities, ADD or ADHD, and conduct or behavior disorders -- than were children who lived in smoke-free homes.
"We estimate that 274,000 cases of the most common neurobehavioral disorders could have been prevented with smoke-free homes," said Hillel Alpert, ScM, a senior research associate at Harvard and one of the study's authors.
Alpert added that the study, which was published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, did not find that secondhand smoke directly caused any of these mental health issues. However, he argued that the "strong evidence of association" between secondhand smoke exposure and the incidence of certain disorders might underline a causal relationship that could be discovered with future longterm investigations.
Indeed, a growing body of research is focused on the link between secondhand smoke and mental health problems.
View the Original article
Estimates suggest that anywhere between 4.8 and 5.5 million children in the U.S. live in households where they are exposed to secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk for multiple health problems. Now, new research suggests that secondhand smoke exposure can increase the odds of developing certain mental and behavioral disorders by 50 percent.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health looked at the data generated by a 2007 national health survey, analyzing the responses of the parents of guardians of more than 55,000 children ages 11 and younger from throughout the U.S. They found that children who were exposed to secondhand smoke were twice as likely to develop so-called neurobehavioral disorders -- including learning disabilities, ADD or ADHD, and conduct or behavior disorders -- than were children who lived in smoke-free homes.
"We estimate that 274,000 cases of the most common neurobehavioral disorders could have been prevented with smoke-free homes," said Hillel Alpert, ScM, a senior research associate at Harvard and one of the study's authors.
Alpert added that the study, which was published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, did not find that secondhand smoke directly caused any of these mental health issues. However, he argued that the "strong evidence of association" between secondhand smoke exposure and the incidence of certain disorders might underline a causal relationship that could be discovered with future longterm investigations.
Indeed, a growing body of research is focused on the link between secondhand smoke and mental health problems.
View the Original article
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Australia: Good Start, but Only the Beginning of Decarbonising the Economy
By Jo Chandler
Turning around emissions growth this decade and then cutting greenhouse pollution by 80 per cent by 2050 - the target announced by the Gillard government yesterday - would put Australia on the trajectory the world needs to take to avoid the catastrophic consequences of four degrees warming this century, leading climate scientists said yesterday.
But they warned that the next few years would be critical and that the planet's systems were poised on the brink of a man-made climate shock equivalent to the most devastating shifts nature had ever delivered on human civilization.
''As a scientific community we have said we have to look at the end game, which is to decarbonise economies - especially industrialized ones - by mid-century,'' ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen, said. Advertisement: Story continues below
''That allows some space for the developing world to bring its people out of poverty. So the 80 per cent target by 2050 is sending a strong signal in that direction,'' Professor Steffen said.
He was hopeful the momentum of such a target and the new technologies and confidence it would nurture would ultimately enable even bigger cuts. ''The first change is to just slow the growth of emissions,'' he said. ''The long-term aspiration target is great and very consistent with what the science is saying we have to do. But to have a chance of reaching that, we actually have to bend the curve this decade.''
View the Original article
Turning around emissions growth this decade and then cutting greenhouse pollution by 80 per cent by 2050 - the target announced by the Gillard government yesterday - would put Australia on the trajectory the world needs to take to avoid the catastrophic consequences of four degrees warming this century, leading climate scientists said yesterday.
But they warned that the next few years would be critical and that the planet's systems were poised on the brink of a man-made climate shock equivalent to the most devastating shifts nature had ever delivered on human civilization.
''As a scientific community we have said we have to look at the end game, which is to decarbonise economies - especially industrialized ones - by mid-century,'' ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen, said. Advertisement: Story continues below
''That allows some space for the developing world to bring its people out of poverty. So the 80 per cent target by 2050 is sending a strong signal in that direction,'' Professor Steffen said.
He was hopeful the momentum of such a target and the new technologies and confidence it would nurture would ultimately enable even bigger cuts. ''The first change is to just slow the growth of emissions,'' he said. ''The long-term aspiration target is great and very consistent with what the science is saying we have to do. But to have a chance of reaching that, we actually have to bend the curve this decade.''
View the Original article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)