And a noticeable part of the world are awake to climate change, land use, and the corruption behind all that:


Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities...


Interstingly, the major group of people are in education... Perhaps we really do need a lot more of education to save our world from ourselves.

Also note the repeated meme that the more highly educated overall appear to feel a far lesser need/desire for "large families"...

A simple equation of:

Better education for EVERYONE = better awareness, better life, less corruption, and a stable population

?

This is our only one planet!


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Yep, education is sorely needed...

...for spammers posting the same link on various threads.

---

Yep, education is sorely needed...

...for spammers posting the same link on various threads.

To be fair, it was different parts of the link destination that were valid for both threads.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities...

One part of that list i'm dubious about is this:
"Safeguarding our health and food, including from GMOs"
Pretty well everything we eat is genetically modified, admittedly not always by specific gene manipulation, but selective breeding is still genetic modification, just at a slower rate.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities...

One part of that list i'm dubious about is this:
"Safeguarding our health and food, including from GMOs"
Pretty well everything we eat is genetically modified, admittedly not always by specific gene manipulation, but selective breeding is still genetic modification, just at a slower rate.

A big difference is in the way of the manipulation and the business intent...

Selective breeding is usually done to breed something beneficial or desirable. The 'desirable' traits might not be beneficial for health (as is the case for "pedigree dogs" for example), but at least the 'natural breeding' aspect limits what harm can be done.

With artificial food-GM, you truly can introduce or take out almost anything you like and without care for whether the result is healthy and viable or not. Indeed, one of the first traits to be introduced was what came to be termed the "knockout gene" to ensure farmers could not sow any viable seeds for next year's crop!

Also note how nearly all food-GM is directed to allow ever higher levels of toxicity to be generated or tolerated and to tie that in with whatever pesticides and herbicides that company Markets... That is a double win for the agribusiness and an ecological disaster for everything else. We also eventually get to eat the (more highly toxic) stuff...

And once food-GM genetic traits escape into the wild, it stays out there for anything viable. As is now being suffered for various "super-weeds" in the US and Canada that are now additionally resistant to the same super-herbicides as the intended crops...


From my observations, food-GM is being cynically used as a patents abused Marketing tool to lock up our food chain. Meanwhile, in the name of no-morals business: Science, our environment, and all consumers be damned.


In very great stark contrast, note the great benefits being sown for medical-GM. However, also note how that is used and controlled in a very different way.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities...

One part of that list i'm dubious about is this:
"Safeguarding our health and food, including from GMOs"
Pretty well everything we eat is genetically modified, admittedly not always by specific gene manipulation, but selective breeding is still genetic modification, just at a slower rate.

A big difference is in the way of the manipulation and the business intent...

Selective breeding is usually done to breed something beneficial or desirable. The 'desirable' traits might not be beneficial for health (as is the case for "pedigree dogs" for example), but at least the 'natural breeding' aspect limits what harm can be done.

With artificial food-GM, you truly can introduce or take out almost anything you like and without care for whether the result is healthy and viable or not. Indeed, one of the first traits to be introduced was what came to be termed the "knockout gene" to ensure farmers could not sow any viable seeds for next year's crop!

Also note how nearly all food-GM is directed to allow ever higher levels of toxicity to be generated or tolerated and to tie that in with whatever pesticides and herbicides that company Markets... That is a double win for the agribusiness and an ecological disaster for everything else. We also eventually get to eat the (more highly toxic) stuff...

And once food-GM genetic traits escape into the wild, it stays out there for anything viable. As is now being suffered for various "super-weeds" in the US and Canada that are now additionally resistant to the same super-herbicides as the intended crops...


From my observations, food-GM is being cynically used as a patents abused Marketing tool to lock up our food chain. Meanwhile, in the name of no-morals business: Science, our environment, and all consumers be damned.


In very great stark contrast, note the great benefits being sown for medical-GM. However, also note how that is used and controlled in a very different way.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

Simonator and Martin, you BOTH raise some good points here. As Simonator points out, there is not much difference between traditional selective breeding and 'GM'... The main one is that 'GM' is MUCH MUCH faster to produce a desired result.

As Martin points out, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences in doing EITHER ONE. And here the speed of 'GM' is a drawback... a potentially DANGEROUS one.

Martin goes on to criticize big agribusiness, with IMO quite a bit of justification. Many people dislike some big business sectors such as 'Big Oil' or 'Big Pharma'. IMO, 'Big Agribusiness' is worse than both of those put together. My opinion...

To combat it, I would suggest to start with a world-wide effort at patent reform. Specifically to remove chemical compounds, genetic codes, business methods, algorithms (linux rocks!), and other ideas and/or naturally occurring things from being patentable.

Not so much 'Big Oil', but 'Big Pharma' and 'Big Agribusiness' are using the patent system to extort large amounts of cash out of the people of the world. It needs to stop, along with the other unethical practices that they do.

I know this has little to do with Solutions to 'climate change'/greenhouse effects', but I thought when you two brought it up, it needed saying.

Have a happy 'US Income Tax' day...

Where next for Avaaz in 2014? ... Priorities...

One part of that list i'm dubious about is this:
"Safeguarding our health and food, including from GMOs"
Pretty well everything we eat is genetically modified, admittedly not always by specific gene manipulation, but selective breeding is still genetic modification, just at a slower rate.

A big difference is in the way of the manipulation and the business intent...

Selective breeding is usually done to breed something beneficial or desirable. The 'desirable' traits might not be beneficial for health (as is the case for "pedigree dogs" for example), but at least the 'natural breeding' aspect limits what harm can be done.

With artificial food-GM, you truly can introduce or take out almost anything you like and without care for whether the result is healthy and viable or not. Indeed, one of the first traits to be introduced was what came to be termed the "knockout gene" to ensure farmers could not sow any viable seeds for next year's crop!

Also note how nearly all food-GM is directed to allow ever higher levels of toxicity to be generated or tolerated and to tie that in with whatever pesticides and herbicides that company Markets... That is a double win for the agribusiness and an ecological disaster for everything else. We also eventually get to eat the (more highly toxic) stuff...

And once food-GM genetic traits escape into the wild, it stays out there for anything viable. As is now being suffered for various "super-weeds" in the US and Canada that are now additionally resistant to the same super-herbicides as the intended crops...


From my observations, food-GM is being cynically used as a patents abused Marketing tool to lock up our food chain. Meanwhile, in the name of no-morals business: Science, our environment, and all consumers be damned.


In very great stark contrast, note the great benefits being sown for medical-GM. However, also note how that is used and controlled in a very different way.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

Simonator and Martin, you BOTH raise some good points here. As Simonator points out, there is not much difference between traditional selective breeding and 'GM'... The main one is that 'GM' is MUCH MUCH faster to produce a desired result.

As Martin points out, there are ALWAYS unintended consequences in doing EITHER ONE. And here the speed of 'GM' is a drawback... a potentially DANGEROUS one.

Martin goes on to criticize big agribusiness, with IMO quite a bit of justification. Many people dislike some big business sectors such as 'Big Oil' or 'Big Pharma'. IMO, 'Big Agribusiness' is worse than both of those put together. My opinion...

To combat it, I would suggest to start with a world-wide effort at patent reform. Specifically to remove chemical compounds, genetic codes, business methods, algorithms (linux rocks!), and other ideas and/or naturally occurring things from being patentable.

Not so much 'Big Oil', but 'Big Pharma' and 'Big Agribusiness' are using the patent system to extort large amounts of cash out of the people of the world. It needs to stop, along with the other unethical practices that they do.

I know this has little to do with Solutions to 'climate change'/greenhouse effects', but I thought when you two brought it up, it needed saying.

Have a happy 'US Income Tax' day...

Ooooh... don't get me started on patent and Intellectual property rights! Oooh no!! Makes me quite heated it does!!

So YES! :) Everything said here +100... and raised to... well let me see now... infinity

Oh, and apologies for not saying hello :)

A small step in the right direction. British Airways announces green fuel plant in Essex

BA will commit to buy 50,000 tonnes of jet fuel made from converted waste as part of GreenSky project

A small step in the right direction. British Airways announces green fuel plant in Essex

BA will commit to buy 50,000 tonnes of jet fuel made from converted waste as part of GreenSky project

A good start, but since a 747 hold 165 tonnes of fuel, that's only enough to fill 303 747s.
Still, if it works other plants will probably spring up, so things are going the right way.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour?

Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour?

:/ well... let's hope BP doesn't get involved... or Exxon... or...

actually ... given the energy industries' track record...

are we going to see them do a quick backtrack on global warming - say - oh yeah - it is happening - so we'd better getter that stuff out before it melts...?

Interesting link Winterknight! Thank you - I think :)

Coal vs Uranium:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Coal is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions.

Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

Nuclear Energy= the future

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour?

:/ well... let's hope BP doesn't get involved... or Exxon... or...

actually ... given the energy industries' track record...

are we going to see them do a quick backtrack on global warming - say - oh yeah - it is happening - so we'd better getter that stuff out before it melts...?

Interesting link Winterknight! Thank you - I think :)

But methane hydrate kept under pressure does not melt.Its the pressure of whats on top of it that keeps it solid. An undersea mudslide or quake that realeases that weight will realease it though.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Is this the way forward? Methane hydrate: dirty fuel or energy saviour?

:/ well... let's hope BP doesn't get involved... or Exxon... or...

actually ... given the energy industries' track record...

are we going to see them do a quick backtrack on global warming - say - oh yeah - it is happening - so we'd better getter that stuff out before it melts...?

Interesting link Winterknight! Thank you - I think :)

But methane hydrate kept under pressure does not melt.Its the pressure of whats on top of it that keeps it solid. An undersea mudslide or quake that realeases that weight will realease it though.

Hi James! How are you? :)

Yes, my verbal shorthand went a little awry there. :/ Moral of the story... don't post when you're in a hurry :)

I was referring to the following section of the article:

As global temperatures rise, warming oceans and melting permafrost, the enormous reserves of methane trapped in ice may be released naturally. The consequences could be a catastrophic circular reaction, as warming temperatures release more methane, which in turn raises temperatures further.

and not the methane hydrate itself actually "melting".

Hope you enjoy the Easter break - if you're getting one of course. :)

Hi anniet, yes I am getting Good Friday off. I just love a 3 day weekend.
Methane hydrate is according to some of the scinece shows I watch a possible suspect in ships sinking. The theory is that if a massive methane hydrate release is under a ship then the ship cant be bouyant in bubbles. A tv show over here called Mythbusters tried to do that. But I dont think they had a large enough bubble field and or a longer sustained air flow.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Hi anniet, yes I am getting Good Friday off. I just love a 3 day weekend.
Methane hydrate is according to some of the scinece shows I watch a possible suspect in ships sinking. The theory is that if a massive methane hydrate release is under a ship then the ship cant be bouyant in bubbles. A tv show over here called Mythbusters tried to do that. But I dont think they had a large enough bubble field and or a longer sustained air flow.

Yeah I seen that Mythbusters episode, but they just used regular "air" bubbles which is why their experiment failed I reckon. :-(

Cheers.

Corn waste fuel 'not better than petrol'

BIOFUELS made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than petrol for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help fight climate change.

A $US500,000 ($A535,300) study paid for by the US federal government and released on Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release seven per cent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional petrol.

While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won't meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.

Cheers.

Corn waste fuel 'not better than petrol'

BIOFUELS made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than petrol for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration's conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help fight climate change.

A $US500,000 ($A535,300) study paid for by the US federal government and released on Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release seven per cent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional petrol.

While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won't meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.

Cheers.

Hi Wiggo :) Thanks for the post.

Another little quote from the report:

An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 per cent better than petrol in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Given that DuPont is one of the "Big 6" Biotech Corporations (along with BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and Monsanto (ooh - can someone open a window please - it's beginning to reek in here)) they dominate the agricultural input market and own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries (accounting for almost 100% of the genetically engineered seed and 60% of the global pesticide market). Thanks to their input we now have potato plants that have to be registered as pesticides, corn plants where every cell contains pesticides that cannot be washed or boiled away (60% of which is fed to livestock), and crops being produced worldwide that, once upon a time, farmers could spray with herbicides before planting, but not after, (as herbicides would kill the intended crop) but now they can spray them willy nilly at all times without "harm" and are indeed encouraged to do so. I'm not going to even go into the horrors that are being done in their labs re: animal experimentation. :(

We've known all this since the nineties. So why are we still believing their lies? Now... we're between a rock and hard place. We might be being told that no farmer in his right mind would remove all the corn crop residue for the biofuel market...

The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticised the research as flawed.

They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.

... but what farmer in his right mind would want to leave any of that toxic stuff to naturally decay on their land... and leach poisons into nearby rivers and streams... :(

Coal vs Uranium:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

Coal is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions.

Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

Nuclear Energy= the future

Hi Julie :)

Thanks for the post. Most interesting in a sort of grim, "oh... bum" sort of way :/

Historically speaking, I have not been a great proponent of nuclear power. I still can't call myself a fan, but that is probably more to do with factors involving human error bordering on criminal folly that has occurred within the industry at times. Hold that up against the fossil fuel industry, and it does pale considerably in comparison however. So... whilst I would say, given a choice between two evils, I would probably lean towards nuclear power... given that the risks are so potentially devastating environmentally... and have such long-term contamination associated with it - I would like to think that we would be much more intelligent siting and building our plants than we have been in the past.

That however could prove quite tricky in view of the impact that climate change is expected to have... for example: on water temperatures and water levels.

Cumbrian nuclear dump 'virtually certain' to be eroded by rising sea levels

effect of warmer temperatures and drought on existing nuclear power plants

... and unfortunately doesn't solve the problem of thermal pollution (excess heat) which whilst it may not contain much in the way of CO2, chemical toxins and particulants - does contain a lot of... well heat, which doesn't exactly solve all our problems. :(

And we would also have to hope that those doing the planning and building weren't flat-out deniers of climate change :/ or we could have nuclear plants going into meltdown all around us if they are wrong. :(

So I'm back looking at renewables (such as wind and solar) and hoping that they remain in the mix for our energy needs... and that over time they could play an increasingly bigger role in satisfying what will hopefully be our more responsible and less wasteful requirements. :)

All a victim of a windy gale of success?


Will the wind in Spain blow slower on the plain?

For the first time in Spain's history, wind contributed the same proportion (21%) of electricity as nuclear last year... Both now contribute more than any other power source. ...

... In Spain's renewable energy success story, encompassing wind, solar (photovoltaic and thermal) and hydro, installed power capacity has risen to 49.1%...

[But]

"Installation levels in Spain have been declining sharply [since the government withdrew its support]," ... "There used to be 41,000 wind energy jobs in Spain; now there are only 23,000. The politics of this have been really toxic."

The figures speak for themselves. In 2012, Spain installed 1,110 megawatts (MW) of new wind capacity. By the end of last year, this figure had dropped to just 175MW.

But Spain is not alone. Most EU countries have scaled back on their level of new wind capacity installation. By contrast, Germany has powered ahead, increasing new capacity by 2,297MW in 2012 and by 3,238MW last year.

The UK also strongly increased new capacity. This is especially ironic given the impression that wind is a controversial and difficult issue in the country...

[And yet...]

... "Lower costs have enabled subsidies for new projects to be reduced, and brought wind and solar much closer to full competitiveness with fossil-fuel alternatives," it states.

The report says that, in the absence of cheap indigenous coal or gas, and given plentiful sunshine and wind, solar and wind power can be cheaper than fossil fuel generation...



As always, all more a game of politics and financial games rather than anything to do with technical merit... And our planet be damned...

Hopefully, the winds of good will prevail!


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)