Green Environment

As a cadre of Google executives took turns touting Google’s newest products at a conference in California on Wednesday, they also described how they were working toward a future in which technology would disappear. That might sound like a bizarre mission for a tech company. Yet they promised that by fading into the background of our lives, technology would become easier to use, more intuitive, more efficient and more anticipatory, even allowing people to speak to Google like it were a person, rather than a piece of software. Google would usher in this new world with tools that would bring web services into every crevice of our lives, from maps that know where we’ll go next, to Google Glass, eyewear that puts the Internet mere millimeters away from our eyeballs. But Google’s professed goal of making technology “get out of the way” masks what’s truly taking place. By making technology invisible, Google is also making it omnipresent. As software and gadgets become less in-your-face, they also become more pervasive and more influential, as we in turn become more dependent on them, more accepting of their presence in our lives and less critical of them. After all, how can someone scrutinize what they can’t see? via Bianca Bosker: The Truth Behind Google’s Bizarre Mission to Make Tech ‘Go Away’.

If there were one American industry that would be particularly worried about climate change it would have to be insurance, right? From Hurricane Sandy’s devastating blow to the Northeast to the protracted drought that hit the Midwest Corn Belt, natural catastrophes across the United States pounded insurers last year, generating$35 billion in privately insured property losses, $11 billion more than the average over the last decade. And the industry expects the situation will get worse.  “The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.” Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming. “Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought,” Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told me last week. “It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.” via Insurers Stray From the Conservative Line on Climate Change – NYTimes.com. “…so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem.” And it raises a perplexing question: why hasn’t corporate America done more to sway its allies in the Republican Party to try to avert a disaster that would clearly be devastating to its own interests?

In a blow to opponents of GMOs and Monsanto, the Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that an Indiana soybean farmer violated the company’s patent by saving its trademark Roundup Ready seeds. Every time a farmer buys seeds from Monsanto, she or he must sign a contract agreeing not to save seeds from the crop. Monsanto’s many vociferous critics condemn this practice for the way it traps farmers in a costly cycle of dependence on the company’s products. Sustainable-farming advocates and GMO critics intensely followed the case in the hopes that a ruling against Monsanto would finally put some limits on that company’s power in the agriculture industry. But the case was also “closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies,” the Associated Press reports. Indeed, it seems the Supreme Court was more concerned about patent law than agricultural issues. via Supreme Court hands a big win to Monsanto on GMO seeds | Grist.

Our thoughts this morning are with those affected by the tornadoes in Oklahoma. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives should pass a bill aiming to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, but some House Democrats are trying to offer amendments to clarify the true nature of the project. [The Hill] The House is expected to easily pass a Keystone XL pipeline approval bill this week with bipartisan support, but liberal Democrats that oppose the project will try to land some punches too. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) wants a floor vote on an amendment requiring that oil transported through the Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline — and any refined products made from it — remain in the U.S. … Holt’s export ban amendment is one of several submitted thus far to the House Rules Committee, which will meet late Tuesday afternoon to decide which amendments will receive votes on the floor the next day. … And a separate amendment from Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) requires that prior to the pipeline approval taking effect, TransCanada must “disclose its campaign contributions and other electioneering expenditures over the previous five years to the public,” a summary states. A good brief summary of what can be said about tornadoes and climate change (hint: it’s complicated). [Grist] Chris Christie says there is no “proof” that climate change helped cause Superstorm Sandy. [WNYC] Pakistan, facing extreme heat and electric blackouts, is turning off air conditioning in public building and directing civil servants to not wear socks. [Guardian] Governor Sean Parnell of Alaska told the Chamber of Commerce that Alaska would contribute $50 million to model how much oil is in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to better lobby the federal government to permit oil companies to “recover.” [LA Times] Ernest Moniz gets sworn in as Energy Secretary today. [The Hill] The United States and European Union have decided to negotiate a settlement among a set of antidumping cases with China involving solar panel exports. [Bloomberg, New York Times] Organizing for Action, the successor to the Obama campaign, has listed dozens of climate deniers in Congress and is asking supporters to “call them out.” [Organizing for Action] The Post reports on the “impatient” Obama supporters who want action on climate change, do not see enough executive action, and are planning protests of OFA meetings. [Washington Post] Yes, we’re definitely over 400 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of air in the atmosphere now. [LA Times] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is criticizing green groups for suing the EPA for failing to meet a regulatory deadline or requirement. [The Hill] The largest wind farm on tribal land will proceed in Oklahoma, with Cherokee Nation, Kaw Nation, Otoe-Missouria Tribe, Pawnee Nation and Ponca Nation expecting $16 million in revenue over 20 years. [Sustainable Business] Electric plug-in car sales have passed 100,000, according to EV America, with the market approaching 48 percent growth. [EarthTechling]

Fish Creek Monitor remembers a favorite chicken and reflects on life near a fracking well: Rest in Peace Maisy March 11, 2008 – May 14, 2013 Our first baby chicks.  (March 2008) The chick on the left is a Buff Orpington.  After researching various chicken breeds, we selected her because we read that they have docile temperaments and are good with children.  That turned out to be true.  We named her Daisy because I love daisy flowers, and the name’s meaning ~ “Day’s Eye” seemed fitting as chickens religiously get up and going at sunrise. While Daisy survived Maisy, we believe she has endocrine disruption.  Immediately following a huge gas release on April 11, 2011 Daisy quit laying eggs.  She was laying regularly until our property was covered in toxic fracking chemicals and gas from the Fulson Drill Site in southeast Arlington, Texas operated by Chesapeake.  She hasn’t laid an egg since. The chick on the right was our beloved Maisy.  We selected her because we thought it would be novel to have a chicken that lays blue/green eggs and were intrigued by the fact that her breed originated from South America.  While not meeting all of APA’s (American Poultry Association) breeding standards of  Ameraucanas, Maisy had the characteristic muff and beard and layed green eggs.  She was known as an Easter Egger. She also quit laying eggs after that toxic gas release, but she did resume laying after one full year of cessation of drilling activity at the Fulson Drill Site.  This observation  leads us to believe that drilling activity next to our homes, schools, and parks is harmful.  We must ban shale gas drilling in our residential communities until it can be proven it is absolutely 100% safe, and we know intuitively it is NOT safe.  NO WAY.  NO HOW. Maisy thought she was a lapdog.   We miss her. Chickens are great pets providing enjoyment and relaxation.  They also provide wonderful, healthy eggs and free organic fertilizer.  While our chickens ate a superb diet consisting of freshly grown organic veggies and insects, Maisy’s life span was cut short due to ~ what we believe ~  is toxic gas drilling near our home.  If gas drilling can cut a chicken’s life span in half, what is it doing to your life span, health, quality of life, or your developing child’s body?   When will people get disgusted enough to say, “Enough is enough!”

Rep. Lamar Smith, the new chair of the House Science and Technology Committee, wrote an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that contains several misrepresentations of fact. He argued for increased fossil fuel production, against the scientific consensus that humans cause climate change, and for a “wait-and-see” approach to cutting carbon emissions. Below is a fact check on the seven worst parts. It is worth noting that just two years ago, the Washington Post’s Editorial Page Editor wrote “The GOPs climate-change denial may be its most harmful delusion.” Apparently it is a delusion the WashPost is happy to spread. Integrity of Climate Science Smith opened with a general appeal for a clear discussion of the facts: “Climate change is an issue that needs to be discussed thoughtfully and objectively. Unfortunately, claims that distort the facts hinder the legitimate evaluation of policy options.” However, with a look at his record, Rep. Smith did not have such a clear discussion in mind. After he became chair of the science committee, his first move was to schedule a hearing that aimed to take issue with the science of climate change. He has criticized “the idea of human-made global warming.” More dangerously, he has made headlines for authoring legislation that would politicize research conducted by the National Science Foundation. Of course, there is strong, 97%-grade consensus on human-caused climate change in the scientific literature, as a recent study confirmed. Keystone Claims With the House set to vote on Wednesday to force the approval of the Keystone tar sands pipeline, Rep. Smith argued that opposition to the Keystone tar sands pipeline hurts the economy and would not decrease carbon emissions. He said the “State Department has found that the pipeline will have minimal impact on the surrounding environment and no significant effect on the climate,” and would create “more than 40,000 U.S. jobs.” This just isn’t true. The Environmental Protection Agency submitted a public comment on the State Department’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, finding that, among other things, State needs to make revisions on the true impact of the project’s carbon emissions and about how dirty tar sands oil truly is. Additionally, tar sands oil extraction is not inevitable because transporting it by rail is not feasible — the pipeline is really their only option. Smith’s claims about 40,000 jobs are also quite inflated. The project would create just 35 permanent jobs, along with 51 coal plants’ worth of carbon dioxide each year. U.S. Emissions Smith went on to argue “that U.S. emissions contribute very little to global concentrations of greenhouse gas.” In fact, annual U.S. carbon emissions rank just behind China’s, despite having only a quarter of China’s population. The U.S. is by far the world’s biggest contributor to global concentrations of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, since that depends on cumulative emissions. Despite advances in energy efficiency and renewable energy, the United States remains a significant part of overall global carbon emissions. Domestic coal use is on the rise again in the U.S., and coal exports reached a record high last year, beating the record set in 1981. America is also the world’s number one fossil fuel subsidizer. Recent Warming Rep. Smith made the case that “global temperatures have held steady over the past 15 years, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.” This is simply not the case. The overall trend line shows continued warming. 2010 was the hottest year on record. Every year of the decades of the 2000′s was warmer than the average temperature in the ’90s. Superstorm Sandy The Chair of the House Science Committee called out “unscientific and often hyperbolic claims” about the impacts of a warming climate. He cited experts

Independent Science News reports on how Monsanto is influencing peer-reviewed scientific journals: by Claire Robinson and Jonathan Latham, PhD Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has jested that instead of scientific peer review, its rival The Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. On another occasion, Smith was challenged to publish an issue of the BMJ exclusively comprising papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. He replied, “How do you know I haven’t already done it?” As Smith’s stories show, journal editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing. Richard E Goodman, University of Nebraska The strategy, often with the willing cooperation of publishers, is effective and sometimes blatant. In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was simply a stuffed dummy. Fast forward to September 2012, when the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published a study that caused an international storm (Séralini, et al. 2012). The study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, suggested a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize, and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with, pose serious health risks. The two-year feeding study found that rats fed both suffered severe organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death. Both the herbicide (Roundup) and the GM maize are Monsanto products. Corinne Lepage, France’s former environment minister, called the study “a bomb”. Subsequently, an orchestrated campaign was launched to discredit the study in the media and persuade the journal to retract it. Many of those who wrote letters to FCT (which is published by Elsevier) had conflicts of interest with the GM industry and its lobby groups, though these were not publicly disclosed. The journal did not retract the study. But just a few months later, in early 2013 the FCT editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. This was a new position, seemingly established especially for Goodman in the wake of the “Séralini affair”. Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004). Goodman had no documented connection to the journal until February 2013. His fast-tracked appointment, directly onto the upper editorial board raises urgent questions. Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science? To equate one journal with “science” may seem like an exaggeration. But peer-reviewed publication, in the minds of most scientists, is science. Once a paper is published in an academic journal it enters the canon and stands with the discovery of plate tectonics or the structure of DNA. All other research, no matter how groundbreaking or true, is irrelevant. As a scientist once scathingly said of the “commercially confidential” industry safety data that underpin approvals of chemicals and GM foods, “If it isn’t published, it doesn’t exist.” Goodman’s ILSI links The industry affiliations of FCT’s new gatekeeper for biotechnol

Indian Country reports: ICTMN Staff May 17, 2013 Elders and chiefs of at least 10 sovereign nations walked out of a meeting with U.S. State Department officials in Rapid City, South Dakota, on Thursday May 16 in which the government was attempting to engage in tribal consultation over the Keystone XL pipeline. Deeming the meeting “invalid,” leaders of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Association—attendees included the Southern Ponca of Oklahoma, Pawnee Nation, Nez Perce Nation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Ihanktonwan Dakota Yankton Sioux, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Crow Creek Sioux Tribe—said they would meet only with President Barack Obama to discuss the pipeline. The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association is made up of the 16 tribal chairmen, presidents and chairpersons in North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska who have joined to defend treaty rights, according to the group. In January they along with other tribes signed the International Treaty to Protect the Sacred Against the Tar Sands. (Related: Tribal Members Sign Treaty Calling for an End to Alberta Oil Sands Development and Keystone XL) Keystone XL would carry up to 800,000 barrels daily of viscous crude known as bitumen from the Alberta oil sands of Canada for 1,700 miles down to the Gulf of Mexico coast in Texas. Obama is slated to make a decision on the $7 billion project sometime this year, perhaps as early as the end of summer. (Related: U.S. Senate Endorses Keystone XL 62–37 in Symbolic, Non-Binding Vote) The chiefs join the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), which two weeks ago released its public comments on the pipeline’s draft environmental assessment report, recommending that the Obama administration reject the pipeline proposal from TransCanada if certain concerns could not be adequately addressed. (Related: Fill Gaps in Keystone XL Draft Environment Report or Reject Pipeline, NCAI Tells Obama Administration) The state department received more than a million public comments by the April 22 deadline, which was coincidentally Earth Day, most of them against the project. (Related: Anti-Keystone XL Tribal Members Urge Fellow Natives to Comment on Environmental Impact Statement) The government’s own Environmental Protection Agency has weighed in against the environmental draft report, which was released on March 1. On April 22 the EPA objected to the review, saying more study was needed of greenhouse gas emissions, the potential effect of spills, and the route through ecologically sensitive territory, the Washington Post reported. (Related: State Department Draft Environmental Report Says Keystone XL Effects on Both Climate Change and Oil Supply Would Be Minimal) They contended that tribes had not been consulted as the report stated they had, and took issue with the report’s assessment that the pipeline would have little to no impact on climate change. (Related: Exaggerated Consultation Claims, Factual Errors in State Department’s Keystone XL Environment Report Rankle Natives) “The standard for consultation with indigenous nations is described as ‘government to government,’ and that standard must not be treated lightly,” said Jennifer Baker, a Denver-based attorney who works with the Great Plains tribes, to Native News Network after the chiefs’ walkout. “The duty to engage with tribes in this manner stems from treaties and the constitution, and it has been expanded upon through court decisions and executive orders.” Consultation or no, the Native leaders who left the meeting issued a statement objecting on multiple grounds. “On this historic day of May 16, 2013, ten sovereign Indigenous nations maintain that the proposed TransCanada/Keystone XL pipeline does not serve the national interest and in fact would be detrimental not only to the collected sovereigns but all future generations on planet earth. This morning the following sovereigns informed the Departmen

Tornado season has been relatively quiet this year. But within in the last week, tornado outbreaks have been erupting from North Texas to Minnesota.   Why do these tornadoes seem to be hitting all of a sudden?   An eastward advancing cold front is to blame. This pocket of cold air has run into warm air from the Gulf of Mexico. Like a wedge, the cold front has caused the warm air to rise, since it's less dense, said Jeff Weber, a scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Florida has a long list of problematic invasive species, from the vervet monkey to the lionfish, but the Burmese python might be the state's public enemy No. 1 — so much so that residents will hop out of their cars at night to catch one double the normal size.