Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents.
Works in the sense that it is economic. So, that’s that solved then.
Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents.
Works in the sense that it is economic. So, that’s that solved then.
Makes him sound like a better pick for Sec State already.
Quite why the animus to someone who agrees that climate change is happening and a carbon tax is the solution is another matter of course.
The view is pretty spectacular. But it’s what he cannot see that worries MacQueen. Like many cities across the UK, Southampton has such poor air quality it breaches international guidelines, and while the government and local authorities are looking to take action on cars, maritime fuel – the dirtiest and most polluting of all diesels – is on no one’s radar. Not only do the giant cruise liners churn out pollutants at sea, they also keep their engines running when they are docked in places like MacQueen’s home town.
Hmm, OK, should this be something we worry about?
German environment group Nabu claims one medium cruise ship emits as many pollutants as five million cars going the same distance. It says the ships belch out 3,500 times more sulphur dioxide than cars
You know, maybe we should?
– although international rules to reduce sulphur emissions in shipping are due to come into force in 2020.
Ah, no, we already got this, done and dusted.
Actually, umm, no, that’s not quite true:
It found that heavy-duty vehicles tested in Germany and Finland emitted about 210mg NOx per kilometre driven, less than half the 500mg/km pumped out by modern diesel cars that meet the highest “Euro 6” standard. However, the buses and trucks have larger engines and burn more diesel per kilometre, meaning that cars produce 10 times more NOx per litre of fuel.
Fiddling with the numbers there then.
The traffic measures are designed to allow for the construction of a new access road into the field where the exploration will take place. Over the next three months Cuadrilla plans to develop a site roughly the size of a rugby pitch, creating a well pad lined with an impermeable membrane to protect the environment.
In April, it hopes to begin drilling down thousands of feet into the rock to take samples and assess the best trajectory for horizontal wells that will, for the first time in the UK, extend out into the shale rocks beneath nearby homes.
A green campaign group has agreed not to repeat misleading claims about the health and environmental impacts of fracking after complaints to the advertising watchdog.
Friends of the Earth spent more than a year trying to defend its claims, which were made in a fundraising leaflet, but has been forced to withdraw them.
The group’s capitulation is a victory for a retired vicar and a retired physics teacher who have been working for years to expose what they believe is scaremongering about a safe technique for extracting shale gas.
The Rev Michael Roberts and Ken Wilkinson complained about Friends of the Earth’s claims to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which also received a complaint from the fracking company Cuadrilla.
The authority found that Friends of the Earth (FoE) failed to substantiate claims that fracking could cause cancer, contaminate water supplies, increase asthma rates and send house prices plummeting.
Plastic bag tax is fuelling spread of food poisoning as people do not wrap raw meat separately
Because there never is a good reason that behaviours evolve, is there?
Some of Britain’s best-loved landscapes are being threatened by the government’s rush to declare the country “open for business”, warn rural campaigners.
That British countryside is entirely man made. Made by previous forms of business like hill farming and all the rest. There is no natural wilderness – what is being suggested is that the form of business taking place there might change, that’s all.
From something which loses money and makes us poorer to something that creates value and makes us richer.
Plans are being made for fracking to take place under Sherwood Forest where an ancient oak stands where according to legend Robin Hood and his merry men rested.
Ineos, one of the world’s biggest chemicals company, is poised to start looking for gas under Sherwood Forest, Nottinghamshire, in a move which could lead to it seeking permission to frack the area.
The area could become a flashpoint with campaigners from Frack Free Nottinghamshire saying they will copy Robin Hood’s example and “defend Sherwood Forest”.
You defend the forest up there at ground level and they’ll frack hundreds of feet below you. You’ll not even know it’s going on.
Is there a part of the world that has both tigers and toucans?
Not in a zoo, obviously?
He said, to much amusement, that trees cause pollution. He was in fact correct in his statement, despite the amusement. and he’s still correct but for a different reason:
City trees, popularly thought to remove pollutants and improve urban life, may also increase the amount of foul air that people breathe, says the UK body which gives independent health guidance to national and local government.
Nature, it’s always been out to kill us……
Dakota Access oil pipeline protesters will not follow a government directive to leave the federal land where hundreds have camped for months, organizers said Saturday, despite state officials encouraging them to do so.
Standing Rock Sioux tribal leader Dave Archambault and other protest organizers confidently explained that they’ll stay at the Oceti Sakowin camp and continue with nonviolent protests a day after Archambault received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that said all federal lands north of the Cannonball River will be closed to public access Dec. 5 for “safety concerns.”
Remember when it was some handful of Bundys hanging out on some Federal land and they should all be sent to jail for life for treason? Even the outrage when they weren’t?
The winter air in Tehran is often foul but for six days last week it was hardly breathable. A dense and poisonous chemical smog made up of traffic and factory fumes, mixed with construction dust, burning vegetation and waste has shrouded buildings, choked pedestrians, forced schools and universities to close, and filled the hospitals.
Anyone who could flee the Iranian mega-city of 15 million people has done so, but, say the authorities, in the past two weeks more than 400 people have died as a direct result of the pollution, known as the Asian “brown cloud”.
Tehran is far from alone. A combination of atmospheric conditions, geography and the start of the winter heating season regularly traps urban air pollution from October to February across a great swath of Asia. But this year has seen some of the worst smog episodes in nearly 20 years despite cities trying to reduce traffic and factory emissions.
Poor places are clean because no one has any shit (other than literal shit) to make the place dirty. Places getting rich are filthy. For people spend that getting richer on basics like food, clothing etc. Then rich places get clean as people spend some of that new richness on having a clean place not enveloped in shit.
All well known, it’s the environmental Kuznets Curve.
The only interesting question is when do people think they’re rich enough to start cleaning all that shit up? One estimate I’ve seen is about $8,000 GDP per capita. It’s only one estimate – but it means that China will be cleaner going into the future, Iran, Indonesia still have some way to go.
The Ontario government has proposed a two-year moratorium on the creation or expansion of bottled water operations fed by groundwater in the Canadian province, in a bid to strike a balance between a burgeoning bottled water industry, a growing population and the effects of climate change.
The province vowed to take action earlier this year after a severe drought prompted questions over regulations that allowed bottled water to draw millions of litres a day of water from the province.
“Water bottling is a different kind of industry and we need to treat it differently,” Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s premier, said as she promised to update the government’s policies. “Thirty years ago, we wouldn’t have envisioned an industry that took water and put it in plastic bottles so that people could carry it around.”
Mayor Kelly Linton said last week that Nestle did nothing wrong because it followed the existing rules, which he called on the province to change so municipalities get a better chance at securing a safe drinking water supply than a bottling company.
Nestle would still be able to renew its permits to take up to 3.6 million litres of water a day from its well in Aberfoyle, where it has a bottling plant, and another 1.1 million litres a day at a well in nearby Erin, another community in Wellington county.
Average Canadian household (ie, not including industry or agriculture, the two big users everywhere) water usage is 300 litres per capita per day. Or, for the 14 million or so Ontarians, 4 billion litres a day. They’re fucking about regulating people who bottle 0.1% of that?
It’s an irrelevance.
Worse that that. For if people don’t get a drink of water from a bottle then they’ll get a drink from the tap. Which comes from the same damn groundwater source as the bottled water.
This is the product of idiot environmentalism – allied with people having absolutely no fucking clue.
Humans are predisposed to murder each other, new research suggests, although it remains unclear if it’s down to genetics or other factors.
Researchers from Spain have found that a tendency to bump off members of the same species is particularly common among primates, and have estimated that around 2% of human deaths at the origin of our species were down to such lethal spats.
Myself I think it’s rather higher than that but that’s from those studies of Yanamamo and so on. But what I love is the bloke claiming to show that it’s all wrong:
But Douglas Fry of the University of Alabama at Birmingham in the US, disagreed, saying that: “Gómez and colleagues demonstrate that recent assertions by Steven Pinker and others that violent death in the Paleolithic was shockingly high are greatly exaggerated. To the contrary, the findings show that social organization is critically important in affecting human violence.”
Gómez says the research highlights the control humans have over their situation in life and death. “The main message of our study is that no matter how violent or pacific we were in the origin, we can modulate the level of interpersonal violence by changing our social environment,”he said. “We can build a more pacific society if we wish.”
No one disagrees that we can build a more pacific society. Steven Pinker is insistent that we have in fact built one. Rather, the finding is about how we do so. And returning to that Edenic hunter gatherer fantasy so beloved of the extreme environmentalists would lead to a more violent one…..in fact, if we were being cheeky, we would start insisting that the consumerist frenzy capitalism makes possible through the system’s efficiency makes for a more pacific society.
So South Australia, the whole state, without power as a result of a storm.
The federal energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, has questioned whether South Australia was too reliant on renewable energy as the state’s premier, Jay Weatherill, said no system could have coped with the major storm and cyclonic winds that lashed the state, which led to lightning strikes hitting generators, causing a surge and overloading the network’s capacity.
Obviously neither solar nor birdchoppers worked in the middle of a storm.
But was that actually the cause? At least on report states that it was lightning strikes at multiple points along the grid, tripping the whole thing into shutdown. Which isn’t, so far as I understand these things (rather little, obviously) anything to do with how the electrons are loaded into the system.
So, who wants to tell us the truth here?
Waste crime is the “new narcotics” according to the head of the Environment Agency (EA), offering huge profits as the authorities race to catch up with the damage caused to society.
Illegal waste activity costs England £1bn a year and more than 1,000 illegal waste sites were discovered last year, more than in the previous two years combined, with 662 still active as of the end of March.
The offences, sometimes involving organised crime gangs, ranged from illegal dumping of household and industrial waste to massive frauds involving recycling fees and landfill tax. However, action by the EA led to almost 1,000 illegal sites being shut down last year, with fines and prosecutions doubling.
“Waste is the new narcotics,” said Sir James Bevan, chief executive of the Environment Agency. “It feels to me like drugs felt in the 1980s: the system hadn’t quite woken up to the enormity of what was going on and was racing to catch up.”
It’s not hard to understand the benefits of recycling — reduction of the amount of waste sent to landfill, conservation of natural resources, energy saving and reduction of greenhouse gases — so why do so many of us make no effort to find out what goes where when sorting out our rubbish for recycling?
It may be uncomfortable to admit but we need to raise our standards to the levels that the French, Dutch and Germans have reached. Those nations are far more enlightened. We need to look in the mirror and realise we must cut back the grotesque amounts of waste eating into our public purse.
Recycling costs us money. Thus the more recycling we do the more the burden on the public purse and further, the more resources we are using.
I think the behaviour that governments and the lobbyists want the citizens to adopt is one whereby they turn up to the supermarket with one or more robust, reusable grocery bags but this only really works when the shopping trip is planned. What somebody is supposed to do if they pop into the supermarket to buy more than two items on the way home is anyone’s guess, unless they fancy forking out a fiver for one of those robust, reusable grocery bags. I expect what we’ll find is people taking up the habit of carrying around a small, compact bag in case they need to do some unscheduled grocery shopping at some point in the day. During the good old days of the Soviet Union, the happy citizens would routinely carry around a string bag called an avoska, which roughly translates as “perhaps bag”, on the off-chance they would stumble across a store selling something worth buying and would be able to carry it home (before swapping it with a neighbour or friend in return for something they might actually want).
For some people, particularly middle-class environmentalists, forcing the masses to adopt practices common in the Soviet Union is probably seen as progress.
Second, enthusiasm for conservation and improved farming practices is widespread until time, money, effort and/or some impact on western choice and convenience are requested.
Bit of a shock really, isn’t it? People like nice things but can balk when the cost becomes apparent?
Who would have thought it?