Link

Stop eating so much meat, top U.S. nutritional panel says

The country’s foremost nutrition advisory panel is taking a stand against meat: Americans should eat less of it, top experts say, in order to protect the environment.

The recommendation could have a significant impact on the amount of meat people eat — as well as the environmental impact of a carnivorous nation.

“We’re not saying that people need to become vegans,” said Miriam Nelson, a professor at Tufts University and one of the committee’s members. “But we are saying that people need to eat less meat.”

The panel’s findings, which were released to the public in the form on a 572 page report this afternoon, specifically recommend that Americans be kinder to the environment by eating more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods. The panel is confident that the country can align both health goals and environmental aims, but warns that the U.S. diet, as currently constructed, could improve.

“Consistent evidence indicates that, in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet,” the report says.

Americans, though they are eating less meat than they have in the past, are still eating too much. The problem, which the committee’s findings reflect, is that all that meat eating is still having too much of an impact on the environment.

Meat eaters have been linked to considerably larger carbon footprint than vegetarians. And the livestock industry has been associated with a considerably larger carbon footprint than any other food industry. The combination of those two realities, along with the committee’s understanding that diets lower in meat consumption, especially red and processed meat consumption, tend to be more healthful, has forced the committee’s hand.

The group, which has been mulling a number of changes to the dietary guidelines, has traditionally advised the government about healthy eating choices which, until now, have only reflected what the group views as a diet that is healthy for humans. The new recommendations mark a major break from the past, and offer a glimpse into what the guidelines might look like in the decades to come.

“If we’re thinking about the foods that are culturally appropriate, we need to start thinking about what’s sustainable,” said Nelson,. “Other countries have already started doing this-including sustainability in their recommendations. We should be doing it too.”

The meat industry, for its part, vehemently objects to the notion that Americans should be eating less meat. The North American Meat Institute has repeatedly questioned whether the nutrition panel should be allowed to include sustainability concerns in its recommendations, and challenged the notion that meat negatively impacts the environment.

“If our government believes Americans should factor sustainability into their choices, guidance should come from a panel of sustainability experts that understands the complexity of the issue,” Barry Carpenter, the chief executive of The North American Meat Institute, said in a statement.

The official dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years, won’t be released until later this year, after the department of Health and Human Services mulls over the advisory committee’s recommendations. The panel’s suggestions are, ultimately, suggestions, which the government doesn’t have to act upon. But historically, the government has incorporated the panel’s suggestions, especially those that recommend changes and updates, into its guidance.

If the government acts upon the panel’s recommendations to suggest lower meat intake, the impact on the meat industry will be significant. While Americans don’t necessarily heed the dietary guidelines ahead of each meal, the guidelines do influence prevalent health narratives. They also help dictate what is on the menu of federal feeding programs, like the school lunch program.

Citigroup commits $100B to combat climate change

Citigroup said it would set aside $100 billion to fund environmental projects over the next decade, doubling the amount it had earmarked for such projects in 2007.

Citigroup said it would fund projects related to renewable energy, greenhouse gas reductions and sustainable transportation.

The third-largest U.S. bank said it had met its previous investment target three years ahead of schedule in 2013.

In 2012, Bank of America Corp set a goal of $50 billion to provide loans and other financing for environmentally friendly energy projects over 10 years.

The same year, Goldman Sachs set a 10-year target of $40 billion for investments in renewable energy projects.

The First Wave Power Plant Is Officially Operational

​Anyone who’s gone swimming on a windy day knows the power of the ocean’s waves. Yesterday, Australia marked the next step forward in harnessing that energy by switching on the world’s first large-scale wave energy power plant.

Though there are other small wave power devices that feed into commercial grids (like the Islay LIM​PET in the UK), Australia’s Perth Wave Energy Project is the largest grid-connected plant in the world and operates multiple wave energy devices.

There are a whole host of different technolo​gies designed to take advantage of the ocean’s undulations, but the Perth project’s technology is unique because the units are submerged, rather than floating on top of the water, making them less likely to get battered by storms.

“The fully submerged buoys are tethered to seabed pump units. These buoys move with the motion of the passing waves and drive the pumps. The pumps pressurize fluid which is then used to drive hydro turbines and generators to produce electricity,” Carnegie Wave Energy Limited, which spent the last ten years developing the technology, explained in a press release.

Image: ​Carnegie Wave Energy

For now, the energy collected into the grid won’t be powering homes across Australia. All of the power generated is being purchased by the Australian Department of Defense to power the country’s largest naval base on Garden Island. But Carnegie is already developing a larger, next generation version of its wave energy devices that the firm claims will deliver four times as much energy as its current model. Those next generation devices could be added to the current fleet to provide a bigger slice of renewable energy to Australia’s grid.

Despite wave energy’s efficiency and re​liability, it’s been one of the​ slowest renewable energies to get off of the ground. Australia’s new plant could just be a flash in the pan-like a similar, but ill-fated, endeavour in Port​ugal. But if the little bobbing buoys under the water are able to capture as much energy as Carnegie predicts, it could serve as a necessary case study to convince other countries around the world to invest in this underused green technology.

How to Grow a Forest Really, Really Fast

A forest planted by humans, then left to nature’s own devices, typically takes at least 100 years to mature. What if we could make the process happen ten times faster? Eco-entrepreneur Shubhendu Sharma’s figured out a way of growing native, self-sustaining forests anywhere in the world, with the efficiency of industrial processes. He tells us how.

Back in 2008, I was an industrial engineer at Toyota in India, helping prepare assembly lines and dispatch systems for car manufacture. One day, a scientist named Akira Miyawaki came to the factory to plant a forest on Toyota’s campus. He gave a presentation on his methods, and I became so fascinated that I decided I wanted to learn how to plant a forest myself.

Miyawaki is quite famous, and very old; he’s now 87. He has planted around 40 million trees all over the world, and in 2006, he won the Blue Planet Prize, the equivalent to the Nobel Prize in the environmental field. His method’s based on what’s called “potential natural vegetation”- a theory that if a piece of land is free from human intervention, a forest will naturally self-seed and take over that land within a period of around 600 to 1,000 years, with the species that would be native and robust, and that would require no maintenance. Miyawaki’s methodology amplifies that growth process to establish a mature, native forest in ten years - ten times the normal rate of forests planted by humans.

If a piece of land is free from human intervention, a forest will naturally self-seed and take over within a period of around 600 to 1,000 years. Akira Miyawaki’s methodology amplifies that growth process to establish a mature, native forest in ten years.

Intrigued, I volunteered with Miyawaki and studied his methodologies, and then planted a forest of 300 trees of 42 species in a 93-square-meter plot in my back garden. It was such a success that I decided to quit the car industry to start Afforestt, a for-profit company devoted to planting native forests for all kinds of clients, from farmers to corporations to city governments.

Mushrooms growing through rice paddy straw, a locally sourced amendment for soil. Photo: Afforestt

Here’s how it works.It takes six steps.

1. First, you start with soil. We identify what nutrition the soil lacks.

2. Then we identify what species we should be growing in this soil, depending on climate.

3. We then identify locally abundant biomass available in that region to give the soil whatever nourishment it needs. This is typically an agricultural or industrial byproduct - like chicken manure or press mud, a byproduct of sugar production - but it can be almost anything. We’ve made a rule that it must come from within 50 kilometers of the site, which means we have to be flexible.

4. Once we’ve amended the soil to a depth of one meter, we plant saplings that are up to 80 centimeters high, packing them in very densely - three to five saplings per square meter.

Photo: Afforest

5. The forest itself must cover a 100-square-meter minimum area. This grows into a forest so dense that after eight months, sunlight can’t reach the ground. At this point, every drop of rain that falls is conserved, and every leaf that falls is converted into humus. The more the forest grows, the more it generates nutrients for itself, accelerating further growth. This density also means that individual trees begin competing for sunlight - another reason these forests grow so fast.

6. The forest needs to be watered and weeded for the first two or three years, at which point it becomes self-sustaining. After that, it’s best to disturb the forest as little as possible to allow its ecosystem, including animals, to become established.

Of course, you have to keep an eye on the forest in case of changing conditions. Rainfall patterns, for example, are different from what they were in the past, and that could affect native species. Oman, where I am doing a forestation project, is getting more rainfall year after year, so biodiversity is actually increasing. We’ve gone from having to plant thorny, bushy species that can grow in any desert to choosing more deciduous species.

This is why, for every species chosen, we do a thorough survey first. We go by real-time data, gathering information for our native species databases. So while a book on native trees may say that X, Y, Z species belongs to a particular geographic region, until we see that species grow full bloom and in good health in that region with our own eyes, we won’t select it as a forestation species.

The soil is amended before saplings are planted. Photo: Afforestt
A freshly planted sapling. Photo: Afforestt

Here’s the funny thing: I have no expertise about how to determine native species for forests! But I worked around this by applying car manufacturing models. At Toyota, I worked with the supplier development team, organizing assembly lines and dispatch systems for cars being manufactured in India. I applied these manufacturing principles to forests, developing a computer program that registers tree species’ specific parameters, such as how high it grows, in what months it blooms, the kinds of temperatures it can tolerate, and so on. For example, if there’s a species that grows up to 50 feet, the one planted next to it should grow only up to 20, because we don’t want a conflict after five years. In other words, we use car-assembly logic to pick an ideal combination of trees to best utilize vertical space. So it’s not me or any individual expert who decides what species to plant, at what ratios: the software figures it out.

We have to let each forest grow and see what can or can’t live in complete harmony with surrounding species. Those that die, we do not replace - that’s nature. It evolves by trial and error.

For water, we have a pattern requirement of how much water is required per square meter. For example, in India, it’s five liters per square meter. But we cannot predict with 100 percent accuracy the behavior of forests after five or ten years, because you can’t know what kind of bird species, predators, or pests are going to attack in time. We want 100 percent survival, but the survival rate we have is around 92 percent. That 8% percent gap is what we work to bridge. We aim to take our methodologies to such perfection that no trees will die. But it’s still a natural process; we have to let the forest grow and see what can or can’t live in complete harmony with surrounding species. Those that die, we do not replace - that’s nature. It evolves by trial and error.

A two-year-old forest. Photo: Afforest.

One great thing about growing a forest is that you can eat it. The forest I grew in my backyard has 42 species of trees, of which 18 are fruit. Our guava trees produce so much fruit that we harvest at least five kilos a day. All my neighbors are getting guava nectar that my mother makes because we have such an abundance.

But not everyone wants a forest full of food - and forests aren’t necessarily good for producing single cash crops. A native forest has to be biodiverse to thrive - including a mix of at least 50 to 100 different species. So if market demand encourages farmers to nurture only fruit species, they will ignore the non-useful species, and the forest won’t survive.

Forests aren’t necessarily good for producing single cash crops. A native forest has to be biodiverse to thrive - including a mix of at least 50 to 100 different species.

At Afforestt, we grow four different types of forest. If I’m designing a forest for a corporate setting, the primary agenda will be aesthetics - a higher ratio of species with flowers, for instance. If I make a forest primarily for the sake of water conservation, the tree species should grow huge and have deep roots. In a public park, we’d choose species that grow small fruits to attract birds, appealing to park visitors. A forest on a farm would include more fruit species in the mix - up to half, including nuts, which offer high value as they can be preserved for a long time. Other useful trees for farming communities include those that produce oil seeds, fodder for cattle, or firewood for humans. So the combination depends on space and the priorities of the client.

An Afforest project transforms a barren piece of land into a lush, dense forest on a residential estate. Photo: Afforestt
A bird visits Sharma’s experimental backyard forest. Photo: Afforestt

As for tangible environmental benefits, in my own garden, I’ve seen an increase from seven bird species to 17 in two years. I think if I were to do the same survey now, I’d find 20 species. Our groundwater used to disappear every summer, but the trees helped recharge our aquifer, so it returned after the second year, too. In cities, green areas improve air quality, increase biodiversity, and reduce the heat-island effect, which improves the microclimates of residential areas. Natural native forests are beneficial because they require no maintenance, in contrast to most urban landscaping, which is immensely resource-intensive, diminishing its ecological value. We also plant forests specifically to conserve groundwater tables.

I would love to partner with someone to conduct environmental studies and collect official data. It’s really expensive. There’s a specific scientific methodology to measure groundwater levels, for example.

So far, we’ve planted 43,000 trees for 33 clients. But our plan is to automate the system so that we can give anyone anywhere in the world step-by-step instructions on how to plant a native forest. We plan to crowdsource knowledge of native tree species; I’m working on a website for this part of the project and plan to launch it within a year. To make soil analysis easy for remote clients, we are also developing a small, GPS-enabled soil probe that will test soil and upload the data onto our server. When the probe is integrated with our database, at the push of a button you’ll know the soil constituents and what nutrients it needs, and we’ll be able to immediately send a complete species list and a detailed procedure.

In my backyard forest, I’ve seen an increase from seven bird species to 17 in two years… Our groundwater used to disappear every summer, but returned after the second year, too.

The hardware can be used to monitor the growth of this forest by reading how much sunlight is reaching the ground, changes in soil nutrition and moisture, and so on. We’ll launch five forest plantations in different places using this method, to prove that by using our methodology and following it step by step, anyone can make their own forest.

Once we’re able to share our afforestation methodology remotely, I believe we can increase scaling exponentially. Afforestt is a vehicle for offering afforestation methodology to people, but it’s the people who implement it who will make forestation scalable. Together, we can bring back entire lost forests.

Watch Sharma’s TED talk, “How to grow a tiny forest anywhere,” below. A version of this interview was originally published on the TED BlogThe TED Fellows program hand-picks young innovators from around the world to raise international awareness of their work and maximize their impact. .

White House Says Climate Change Impacts More Americans Than Terrorism | VICE News

Even as President Barack Obama seeks the blessing of Congress for sustained attacks on the Islamic State, he’s being accused of slighting the threat of terrorism compared to the risks posed by climate change.

“It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama told the news site Vox in an interview. “We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that – the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive.”

Vox asked Obama whether the news “sometimes overstates the level of alarm” about terrorism, “as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease.”

“If it bleeds, it leads, right?” Obama replied. “You show crime stories and you show fires, because that’s what folks watch, and it’s all about ratings. And, you know, the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos, along with plane crashes and a few other things, that’s the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs.”

Accounts of progress in battling disease or feeding more people are “not a sexy story,” he added. “And climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.”

Pressed on the comments, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that more people will face a “direct, daily impact” from climate change or disease than terrorism.

But the US leader’s conservative critics swiftly jumped on his characterization of the Paris killings in January as a random attack at a time when the Islamic State – the al Qaeda offshoot that has seized control of much of Iraq and Syria – has been beheading Western hostages and burned a captured Jordanian air force pilot alive in a cage.

“What the hell?” conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh wondered on his widely aired show. “What daily impact? What dramatic changes in people’s lives is brought on by global warming? Is unemployment because of global warming? Is the fact that people can’t get health insurance, is that because of global warming?”

And even before the Vox interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee – a once, and perhaps future, Republican presidential contender – told Fox News that “a beheading is much worse than a sunburn.”

New safety rules for ‘bomb trains’ under White House review. Read more here.

Obama has repeatedly warned of climate change as a long-term threat. In his January State of the Union speech, he noted that the Pentagon has called climate change a “threat multiplier.” An October report from the Defense Department noted that a warming world “will intensify the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict,” fueling shortages of food and water, raising the odds of epidemics and making disputes over resources worse.

And the new National Security Strategy from the White House calls the issue “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”

“The present day effects of climate change are being felt from the Arctic to the Midwest. Increased sea levels and storm surges threaten coastal regions, infrastructure, and property. In turn, the global economy suffers, com­pounding the growing costs of preparing and restoring infrastructure.”

The Institute for Economics and Peace estimates the number of deaths from terrorism has increased fivefold since 2000, with nearly 18,000 victims in 2013. The war in Syria accounts for much of the current toll, the group reported last year.

On the other hand, the World Bank estimates that climate change “threatens to put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development progress.”

Earnest told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl on Tuesday that “more people are directly affected by those things than by terrorism.” But he wouldn’t elaborate when asked whether the administration considered climate change a greater threat than terrorism: “I wouldn’t have a whole lot more to say about what the president has said in that interview.”

Follow Matt Smith on Twitter: @mattsmithatl

mount everest climbing climate change

Climbers Can No Longer Scale a Section of Mount Everest Because of Climate Change | VICE News

After last year’s deadly avalanche on the slopes of Mount Everest, authorities in Nepal have ordered climbers to shift their route away from the scene of the snowslide.

Instead of hugging the western shoulder of the rugged Khumbu Icefall, the new path authorized by the body that regulates operations on the world’s highest peak will take climbers through the middle of the icefall. The idea is to leave climbers less exposed to the kind of avalanche that killed 16 Sherpa guides in April 2014 – a risk that could become more common as Himalayan glaciers retreat in the face of a changing climate.

The route may be more difficult for climbers, but “some things are more important,” Mohan Krishna Sapkota, a spokesman for Nepal’s Tourism Ministry, told VICE News.

“They have changed the route to make the expeditions avoid the more risky area,”

Sapkota said. “Our prime objective is to make a safer route than before.”

Tony Olejnicki, an Australian mountain guide who was on the mountain in 2014, called the decision “very sensible.” But he said it would mean bringing more equipment up the icefall, which he said is just like it sounds: “It’s like a big waterfall, if you like, of big blocks of ice.”

‘Things are changing, that’s for sure, the glacier environment, the glacier dynamics – it’s all changing.’

“If you go through the middle, you have to go across ladders,” Olejnicki told VICE News. “You need to put an aluminum ladder across the crevasses. These ladders have been brought by people, Sherpa porters, about 700 meters up from base camp.”

Last year’s avalanche effectively closed down the 2014 climbing season when surviving sherpas refused to return. It was the single deadliest day in the long history of efforts to conquer the 29,000-foot (8,800-meter) mountain, which has claimed more than 250 lives.

The Himalayan peaks of Everest and its sisters are sometimes called Asia’s water towers. The same snows that pose such a risk to mountaineers are a hydrological storehouse for the continent, but it’s been losing a bit of its stock every year.

“Things are changing, that’s for sure, the glacier environment, the glacier dynamics – it’s all changing,” Jeffrey Kargel, a University of Arizona geologist, who has conducted regular studies on the high slopes of Everest, told VICE News.

In 2014, a Chinese study found the glaciers atop Everest had shrunk by about 10 percent over the past four decades. A multinational study the year before put the figure at around 13 percent over 50 years and found the mountain’s snowline was 180 meters (585 feet) above where it had been in the early 1960s.

Glaciers have waxed and waned atop the Himalayas for centuries. But Kargel said human-induced changes in atmospheric and oceanic systems risk destabilizing those rivers of ice.

Alaska’s Iditarod sled dog race has been re-routed because there’s not enough snow. Read more here.

“You have the potential to enter into a new and unfamiliar regime of glacial hazards – a new and unfamiliar regime, so that Sherpa guides who know full well how the last decade has been might not understand what this next decade brings,” Kargel said. “It adds an additional layer of complexity to planning, and I would say that even without climate change, the ice falls and hanging glaciers are absolutely treacherous.”

There’s no way to completely avoid risks when climbing the world’s highest peaks – “But if it’s possible to skirt the most horrific hazards, that’s a good thing.”

Warmer air carries more moisture, which falls as snow in high elevations. The weight of that snow can break chunks of ice off hanging glaciers, like the one behind the 2014 disaster. And warmer temperatures and water from melting ice can combine to weaken a glacier’s grip on the underlying rock, Kargel said.

“Instead of ice being frozen to the bed, it finds itself on a slippery, wet surface and falls off,” he said.

And Olejnicki said that without the snowpack to cement it, the loose rock at the top of the mountain would leave Everest “not really climbable.”

“If you have exposed, loose rock, it’s dangerous and it’s not fun,” he said. The ice is “not necessarily safe, but you need this snow and ice cover to be able to climb up.”

Nepal can’t really afford a Sherpa boycott of Mount Everest after avalanche. Read more here.

The 2014 deaths were the last straw for some guides, who also have complained about the Nepalese bureaucracy. British Columbia-based PeakFreaks announced it was abandoning Everest in 2015, citing “drastic alterations to the weather” as well as safety concerns. In a statement posted on its website, PeakFreaks said it will concentrate on taking climbers to other mountains “free from thorny politics, crumbling glaciers, and looming ice-falls.”

And Olejnicki, who led climbers up Everest for five seasons before the disaster, said he was turning his attention to other peaks as well. The Sherpa deaths were “very upsetting,” he said, but the business of reaching the roof of the world was getting to be a grind. It’s a grueling, weeks-long trek, “But for me as a climber, it’s boring,” he said.

“Sometimes people who’ve been doing something over and over again, it all becomes the same,” he said.

But for many like Kargel, whose work has taken him about two-thirds of the way up the mountain, “There are no words” to describe Everest.

“Whenever I get above the treeline, it’s special like coral reefs are special and tropical rain forests are special,” Kargel told VICE News. “The tundra above the treeline is so beautiful. The wildlife, the flora and fauna, which are so exquisitely adapted to that range of condition, it’s just breathtaking.”

Follow Matt Smith on Twitter: @mattsmithatl

Toxic Waste Spill in North Carolina: Coal Ash (Part 1) | VICE News

Coal ash, which contains many of the world’s worst carcinogens, is what’s left over when coal is burnt for electricity. An estimated 113 million tons of coal ash are produced annually in the US, and stored in almost every state — some of it literally in people’s backyards. With very little government oversight and few safeguards in place, toxic chemicals have been known to leak from these storage sites and into nearby communities, contaminating drinking water and making residents sick.

On February 2, 2014, up to 39,000 tons of coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water spilled out into the Dan River in North Carolina after a pipe broke underneath a coal ash pond at a Duke Energy power plant. The environmental disaster thrust Duke Energy, the country’s largest electricity company, into the spotlight, revealing a history of violations and inadequate oversight of ponds at all of its plants across the state.

In part one, VICE News travels to North Carolina to visit a river that’s been poisoned with arsenic from a nearby Duke Energy site, speak with a resident who has found toxic heavy metals in her drinking water, and question a Duke Energy spokesperson about the power company’s policies.

Watch “Showdown in Coal Country”

Watch “Petcoke: Toxic Waste in the Windy City”

Read “Humans Are Destroying the Environment at a Rate Unprecedented in Over 10,000 Years”

Read “The Economic Cost of Carbon Pollution Is Much Greater Than Estimated, Say Stanford University Researchers”

Read “The EPA Tightened Rules on Coal Waste, But Not Enough, Say Environmentalists”

9 Houseplants That Clean The Air And Are Basically Impossible To Kill

Pop quiz: which is more polluted, indoor air or outdoor air? 10 times out of 10, indoor air in your house, office or apartment is going to be worse than the air outside. Indoor air pollution has been ranked among the top 5 greatest risks to public health by the EPA, and stagnant indoor air allows pollutants to build up and stick to the things inside of your home.

The things in our homes emit some nasty toxic chemicals like formaldehyde for example. You can also be impacted by pollutants like pollen, bacteria, mold, and various outdoor contaminants that find their way inside.

Fortunately, houseplants can help us solve some of these air quality issues. Even if you don’t have a green thumb, these houseplants are basically impossible to kill. Let’s check them out!

1. Garden Mum

This plant was found by NASA to be a real air-purifying beast. It removes ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde, and xylene from your home’s air. It’s popular and inexpensive, plus they can be planted outside too.

2. Spider Plant

Spider plants are incredibly easy to grow, so if you’re a beginner, this is a great one to start with. It lights bright, indirect light and sends out shoots with flowers on them that will eventually grow into baby spider plants that you can propagate yourself. Before too long, you’ll have more spider plants than you’ll know what to do with.

3. Dracaena

There are over 40 kinds of dracaena plants, which makes it easy to find the right one for you. They remove benzene, formaldehyde, trichloroethylene, and xylene from the air. They are toxic to cats and dogs though, so if you have pets, you might want to think twice about this one.

4. Ficus

Ficus trees are a favorite of mine as they are able to grow quite large depending on the type of pot you have them in. They typically stand between 2 and 10 feet tall and have some serious air cleaning abilities. You can also keep it outside in the spring and summer. The ficus removes benzene, trichloroethylene and formaldehyde from indoor air.

5. Peace Lily

Not only does the peace lily send up beautiful flowers, but they’re impossible to kill and have great air cleaning abilities. They flower through most of the summer and prefer shady spots with moist but not soggy soil. It removes ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene.

6. Boston fern.

This plant likes cool locations with high humidity and indirect light. Bathrooms are a perfect spot for these little friends. They remove pollutants like xylene and formaldehyde from indoor air.

7. Snake Plant/Mother-in-law’s Tongue.

I see this one all over the place in offices and restaurants – and for good reason. They’re pretty much impossible to kill. They need water only occasionally and prefer drier conditions. They don’t need much direct sunlight either. They remove benzene, formaldehyde, trichloroethylene and xylene from indoor air.

8. Bamboo Palm

Bamboo palms are most effective at filtering formaldehyde. They thrive in full sun and bright light. They grow as high as 12 foot too, making them an incredible presence indoors. They remove benzene, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene.

9. Aloe Vera

Aloe is a multi-use plant for sure. It has health benefits when consumed in smaller amounts, helps relieve burns, and cleans your indoor air as well. It removes formaldehyde effectively from indoor air.

Image credit: F. D. Richards, Flickr

One Person’s Trash Is Another’s Treasure: 10 Foods You Can Grow From Scraps

One of the biggest challenges to living off the grid in a sustainable way is figuring out what to do with your trash. It’s less a problem of disposal and more an issue of figuring out how to make use of everything you bring in. Making a compost heap is a great way to dispose of old food scraps and turn it into nutrient-rich soil. It takes your trash and turns it into a sort of black gold. But did you know you can regrow a lot of your food scraps?

What kind of foods can you regrow? Let’s run down the list.

1. Carrots.

Carrots are an easy one. Simply chop the tops of your carrots off, leaving about three quarters of an inch of the carrot still attached to the greens. Put in soil and water. A new carrot will grow out of the top.

2. Celery.

This was a good one for my household. We eat a ton of celery! Instead of throwing out the base of your celery, simply plant it in some decent soil and it’ll start regrowing almost immediately. Harvest it as you need it, and eventually you’ll never buy celery again.

3. Onions.

When you go to chop an onion, cut the roots off the bottom of the onion. Be sure to leave a little bit of the vegetable with the root. You don’t need much. Put the roots in soil, water frequently, and a new onion will grow out of it.

4. Green onions.

Like celery, simply plant the bases of your green onions in some soil and harvest as necessary. It will regrow rather quickly.

5. Romaine lettuce.

Leave a couple inches of leaf on the base of the plant and plant it in soil, just as you would celery or green onions.

6. Ginger.

This one isn’t exactly a food scrap, but you can break apart a ginger root and grow more ginger out of it. After about four months, you can re-harvest portions of the new root as you need it.

7. Pineapple.

Pineapple is one of the more difficult ones to regrow due to the length of time it takes and the fact that it only grows easily in some climates. But when you chop the top, leafy portion of the fruit off, plant it directly into some potting soil. A new pineapple will grow out of it.

8. Potatoes

One of my favorites. It’s so easy and you can yield a ton of potatoes out of just a few eyes. As they begin to grow eyes, or those little nodes you see coming out of the skin, chop them up, leaving a small cube of the potato with the eye itself. Plant a few inches apart in deeper soil. This one isn’t for small pots for sure.

9. Garlic.

Again, not exactly a food scrap, but you can take one bulb of garlic and, after fully grown, turn it into about a dozen. Simply break apart the bulb and plant in soil with the sprouted end up in the autumn. It may sound weird, but if you plant in the fall, it’ll begin growing early in the spring and you’ll have your harvest ready by late summer.

10. Mushrooms.

This is also a pretty difficult one to regrow, but it’s possible. Remove the head of the mushroom and plant the stalk in the soil with the very top of the stalk exposed to the air. A new mushroom head will grow out of the stalk if its kept in cool, moist areas without too much light.

Image credit: April Griffus/Flickr

Loggers Accidentally Cut Down World’s Oldest Tree in Amazon Forest

The giant Samauma tree that is thought to be over 5,800 years old judging on its concentric rings and estimated to be close to 40 meters in height was a major part of the native tribes cultural landscape, countless generations of natives having witnessed the long duration of the tree and having included it in their own culture.

“It is the Mother spirit of the rainforest, from this spirit-tree came the life force of all things living. They have destroyed Aotlcp-Awak, they have brought darkness upon not only our people, but the whole world” explains local tribesman leader Tahuactep of the Matsés tribe.

“For many generations, the Mother tree has brought my people health and good fortune. The roots of the Mother tree spread throughout the rainforest and bring its life spirit to the world. What will be left of the animals, of the plants and of our people now that the Mother spirit is gone” asks Kalahuaptl, a local shaman. “They have murdered the Mother spirit knowingly, they have done this to kill our people and take the spoils of the land” he adds, visibly shaken by the destruction of the millennia-old Samauma tree.

Anna Golding, local researcher for non profit organization and conservancy group Rainforest Protection Coalition (RPC), an initiative stemming from Berkeley University in California, believes the ‘incident’ was intentionnal. ” There are large portions of this national reserve that are rich in oil and natural gas. There has been committed action by energy corporations to lobby the government to exploit the area for years. The protected zones have been cut in half over the past decade and this is only their latest attempt to get rid of the local populations who are fighting to preserve their cultural heritage and lifestyle” she admits.

“These actions are clearly perpetrated with the consent of local authorities and the government. If this wasn’t the case, why are local enforcement agencies not prosecuting these corporations? Why are these loggers free to keep doing what they are doing? That is the bigger question” she adds.

Between 1991 and 2014, the total area of forest lost in the Amazon has more than tripled, with most of the lost forest becoming pasture for cattle. Rainforests are the richest places on earth holding the majority of the planet’s biodiversity, yet 100 acres of rainforests are cleared every minute, estimates a recent 2014 World Resources Institute report.

Tesla Motors Announces A New Home Battery; Living Off The Grid Will Soon Be Status Quo

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, announced Wednesday that the company is working on a new kind of battery that would be used to power homes. Based on Tesla’s lithium-ion battery technology, the new battery is expected to help the company become a leader in the growing home energy-storage market.

Speaking during an earnings conference call on Wednesday, Musk said that the design of the battery is complete, and production would begin in about six months. Although the company did not provide any date for the product’s launch, Musk said that he was pleased with the result.

“We are going to unveil the Tesla home battery, the consumer battery that would be for use in people’s houses or businesses fairly soon,” Bloomberg quoted Musk as saying.

During an earnings call last year, Musk had talked about his plans to make a product that would be fitted into consumers’ homes, instead of their cars. He had expressed an interest in the home energy-storage market and predicted enormous demand for battery systems for backup power at both homes and businesses.

“We are trying to figure out what would be a cool stationary (battery) pack,” Forbes had quoted Musk as saying at the time. “Some will be like the Model S pack: something flat, 5 inches off the wall, wall mounted, with a beautiful cover, an integrated bi-directional inverter, and plug and play.”

The Palo Alto, California-based automaker already produces residential energy-storage units through SolarCity Corp., a solar-power company that names Musk as its chairman and the biggest shareholder. In addition, Tesla’s Fremont, California, facility also produces large stationary storage systems for businesses and utility clients, Bloomberg reported.

“The long-term demand for stationary energy storage is extraordinary,” JB Straubel, Tesla’s chief technical officer, said. “We’ve put in a huge amount of effort there.”

At this moment, many solar or wind-powered homes have to remain on a the grid because there has not been a way to store extra power for lean hours. If given a relatively cheap and reliable battery to hold the power needed, building off-grid in the country will become commonplace, and even in the city, self powered homes could be a less expensive option than being grid-tied.

Now who’s ready to fire their monopoly power company?

Multiple Religions Worshiping Under The Same Roof… Wait, What?!

The internationally unique House of Religions opened its doors on Sunday, where e ight religious communities are going to live together under one roof. It is the first of its kind in this world, but hopefully not the last. This is the type of religious tolerance the world needs right now.

In a study on the development of the western districts of Bern, citizens demanded action against the marginalization of cultural and religious minorities in 1998.

According to the operators, the architecture of the building allows various communities to seek contact with each other, while also having their own respectful sacred space.

“Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world. Through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law. ” – Yamaka Vaga (Buddha)

With religious tension rising around the world, it’s nice to see some uplifting examples of love and compassion towards other faiths. Granted, this “temple” does look like a glorified shopping mall from the exterior, but on the inside you can see the unique charm each religion brings to the world. Visiting this church to pray to your god, inevitability makes you realize and acknowledge the god’s and worshipping practices of our brothers and sisters around the world.

It may not be everything we hoped for, but it’s a definite start towards a more harmonious future. These are the first baby steps towards religious tolerance and it’s breath of fresh air, given the surrounding atmosphere of religious hate. I hope this story inspires more people to see the world religions as separate paths that ultimately lead to the same as unity.

Let us know what you think in the comments below. Would you like something like this in your town?

Try Out These 3 Powerful Guided Meditations

These meditations are great for feeling peace and calm. They will also help you overcome any challenges you might be facing.

These meditations can be viewed online and downloaded so you can use them whenever you like. They combine traditional meditation with tapping for a very powerful experience.

They will also help release deep core issues that you may be dealing with as it uses techniques from The Tapping Solution by Nick Ortner.

Check out these free meditations to help bring peace, calm and relaxation.

The First US City to Run On 100% Renewable Energy

Congratulations to Vermont’s Largest City, Burlington

The first US city to run entirely on 100% renewable energy.

Burlington, Vermont state’s largest city, with a population estimated at upwards of 213,000 people, has described itself as “forward-thinking”; and recently it earned that title as it recently became the first U.S. city of any decent size to run entirely on renewable electricity.

And contrary to those who insist that renewably generated electricity is an expensive luxury and will cost tax payers too much in the short term, Ken Nolan of Burlington Electric Department (BED) told NPR that the switch to renewables was initially driven by economic concerns and will likely save the city $20 million over the next decade.

The city’s publicly owned utility, the Burlington Electric Department (BED), has a bold mission statement;

– BED will continue to be a leader in sustainability by producing power that is as clean and as locally produced as possible.

– BED will continue to treat the environment with the utmost respect and will continue to influence decisions and public policy that enhance environmental quality, the use of renewable resources, and the sustainability of Burlington.”

The city lives up to that mission by acquiring its energy in many ways,

including biomass, hydroelectric, solar and wind.

Renewable electricity generation isn’t the only way this forward-thinking city it’s future. BED has enacted aggressive energy efficiency programs and boasts that it uses less electricity now than it did in 1989. And despite its small size, Burlington already has nine charging stations for electric vehicles.

Vermont should be proud of it’s accomplishments and we should encourage them whole-heartedly. This is the type of positive change we all need to embrace. If you would like to see projects like this become a reality near you, help share this story. By giving stories like this awareness, you are one step closer to seeing this manifest in your near future.

Portland’s New Pipes Harvest Power From Drinking Water | We Are Change

Fact Coexist

If you live in Portland, your lights may now be partly powered by your drinking water. An ingenious new system captures energy as water flows through the city’s pipes, creating hydropower without the negative environmental effects of something like a dam.

Small turbines in the pipes spin in the flowing water, and send that energy into a generator.

“It’s pretty rare to find a new source of energy where there’s no environmental impact,” says Gregg Semler, CEO of Lucid Energy, the Portland-based startup that designed the new system. “But this is inside a pipe, so no fish or endangered species are impacted. That’s what’s exciting.”

For water utilities, which use massive amounts of electricity, the system can make it cheaper to provide clean drinking water. Utilities can either use the power themselves or sell it to a city as a new source of revenue.

“We have a project in Riverside, California, where they’re using it to power streetlights at night,” Semler says. “During the day, when electricity prices are high, they can use it to offset some of their operating costs.”

In Portland, one of the city’s main pipelines now uses Lucid’s pipes to make power that’s sent into the grid. Though the system can’t generate enough energy for an entire city, the pipes can power individual buildings like a school or library, or help offset a city’s total energy bill. Unlike wind or solar power, the system can generate electricity at any time of day, regardless of weather, since the pipes always have water flowing through them.

The pipes can’t generate power in every location; they only work in places where water is naturally flowing downward with gravity (if water is being pumped, the system would waste energy). But they have another feature that can be used anywhere: The pipes have sensors that can monitor water, something that utilities couldn’t do in the past.

“We made electrical infrastructure really smart over the last 20 to 25 years, but the same hasn’t happened in water,” Semler says. He points to the example of a pipe that burst near UCLA last year, wasting a staggering 20 million gallons of water in the middle of California’s crippling drought.

“They didn’t really know that the pipe burst until somebody from UCLA called,” Semler explains. “Our pipe can get indicators like pressure, a leading indicator for whether a pipe is leaking or not. So before it bursts and before we waste all the water, there are onboard information systems that water agencies can get to more precisely manage their infrastructure.”

Sensors in the pipe can also monitor water quality, making sure it’s safe to drink.

The company hopes to work with cities to install new systems as old pipes wear out. They’re also hoping to expand to the developing world. “It’s a great source of remote power,” says Semler. “So in places outside the city that don’t have an electrical grid, you’re able to use the system to generate energy.”

The biggest potential for the new system may be in places like California, where 20% of total energy use goes into the water supply-and even more electricity will be used as cities start to install desalination plants. With the pipes, utilities can generate some of their own much-needed power.

“There’s a lot of energy in going into making sure we have safe clean drinking water,” Semler says. “Our focus is really on helping water become more sustainable.”

The Secret Montreal Cave You Can Visit And Explore With Your Friends

You may not know this but Montreal has a pretty impressive set of underground caves right in the middle of the city. At the center of Park Pie IX in St-Leonard lies the entrance to the Cavernicole Cave, a historic site that was first discovered in 1812.

During the rebellion of 1837 the cave was used to store weapons as well as a hiding place for patriot soldiers. The cave was later almost completely forgotten about until 1949 when an article on the cave appeared in the Journal La Patrie. The cave was deemed a safety hazard that needed to be fenced off. It remained obstructed from 1968 until about 1978 when the Quebec Speleology Society opened it back up so that it could be studied. Since then the site has been designated as a historic landmark and a tourist attraction.

About 3,000 people visit the cave every year and you can too! The cave features a large 40 meter entrance that leads to an open area. The room gets gradually smaller as you venture in deeper which then leads to even more underground passages.

Photo cred – GoogleMaps Photo cred – VilleDeMontreal Photo cred – leveil Photo cred – LeDevoir

Photo cred – JournalMetro

Photo cred – guidesulysse Photo cred – speleo

*Not Actual Cave Pictured Above

Jeremy Hazan (author)

Viral Content EditorMulti-talented mastermind with aspirations of global domination | Hates the beach and gluten-free foods | Loves coffee and snowboarding | Possesses extensive amounts of useless TV and movie knowledge.

Lifestyle Time for an adventure in Park Pie XII.

For More Stories Like These

Photo cred – schweizmobil *

Plants talk to each other using an internet of fungus

It’s an information superhighway that speeds up interactions between a large, diverse population of individuals. It allows individuals who may be widely separated to communicate and help each other out. But it also allows them to commit new forms of crime.

No, we’re not talking about the internet, we’re talking about fungi. While mushrooms might be the most familiar part of a fungus, most of their bodies are made up of a mass of thin threads, known as a mycelium. We now know that these threads act as a kind of underground internet, linking the roots of different plants. That tree in your garden is probably hooked up to a bush several metres away, thanks to mycelia.

The more we learn about these underground networks, the more our ideas about plants have to change. They aren’t just sitting there quietly growing. By linking to the fungal network they can help out their neighbours by sharing nutrients and information – or sabotage unwelcome plants by spreading toxic chemicals through the network. This “wood wide web”, it turns out, even has its own version of cybercrime.

Around 90% of land plants are in mutually-beneficial relationships with fungi. The 19th-century German biologist Albert Bernard Frank coined the word “mycorrhiza” to describe these partnerships, in which the fungus colonises the roots of the plant.

Fungi have been called ‘Earth’s natural internet’

In mycorrhizal associations, plants provide fungi with food in the form of carbohydrates. In exchange, the fungi help the plants suck up water, and provide nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen, via their mycelia. Since the 1960s, it has been clear that mycorrhizae help individual plants to grow.

Fungal networks also boost their host plants’ immune systems. That’s because, when a fungus colonises the roots of a plant, it triggers the production of defense-related chemicals. These make later immune system responses quicker and more efficient, a phenomenon called “priming”. Simply plugging in to mycelial networks makes plants more resistant to disease.

But that’s not all. We now know that mycorrhizae also connect plants that may be widely separated. Fungus expert Paul Stamets called them “Earth’s natural internet” in a 2008 TED talk. He first had the idea in the 1970s when he was studying fungi using an electron microscope. Stamets noticed similarities between mycelia and ARPANET, the US Department of Defense’s early version of the internet.

Film fans might be reminded of James Cameron’s 2009 blockbuster . On the forest moon where the movie takes place, all the organisms are connected. They can communicate and collectively manage resources, thanks to ” some kind of electrochemical communication between the roots of trees“. Back in the real world, it seems there is some truth to this.

It has taken decades to piece together what the fungal internet can do. Back in 1997, Suzanne Simard of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver found one of the first pieces of evidence. She showed that Douglas fir and paper birch trees can transfer carbon between them via mycelia. Others have since shown that plants can exchange nitrogen and phosphorus as well, by the same route.

These plants are not really individuals

Simard now believes large trees help out small, younger ones using the fungal internet. Without this help, she thinks many seedlings wouldn’t survive. In the 1997 study, seedlings in the shade – which are likely to be short of food – got more carbon from donor trees.

“These plants are not really individuals in the sense that Darwin thought they were individuals competing for survival of the fittest,” says Simard in the 2011 documentary Do Trees Communicate? “In fact they are interacting with each other, trying to help each other survive.”

However, it is controversial how useful these nutrient transfers really are. “We certainly know it happens, but what is less clear is the extent to which it happens,” says Lynne Boddy of Cardiff University in the UK.

While that argument rages on, other researchers have found evidence that plants can go one better, and communicate through the mycelia. In 2010, Ren Sen Zeng of South China Agricultural University in Guangzhou found that when plants are attached by harmful fungi, they release chemical signals into the mycelia that warn their neighbours.

Tomato plants can ‘eavesdrop’ on defense responses

Zeng’s team grew pairs of tomato plants in pots. Some of the plants were allowed to form mycorrhizae.

Once the fungal networks had formed, the leaves of one plant in each pair were sprayed with Alternaria solani, a fungus that causes early blight disease. Air-tight plastic bags were used to prevent any above-ground chemical signalling between the plants.

After 65 hours, Zeng tried to infect the second plant in each pair. He found they were much less likely to get blight, and had significantly lower levels of damage when they did, if they had mycelia.

We suggest that tomato plants can ‘eavesdrop’ on defense responses and increase their disease resistance against potential pathogen,” Zeng and his colleagues wrote. So not only do the mycorrhizae allow plants to share food, they help them defend themselves.

It’s not just tomatoes that do this. In 2013 David Johnson of the University of Aberdeen and his colleagues showed that broad beans also use fungal networks to pick up on impending threats – in this case, hungry aphids.

Johnson found that broad bean seedlings that were not themselves under attack by aphids, but were connected to those that were via fungal mycelia, activated their anti-aphid chemical defenses. Those without mycelia did not.

“Some form of signalling was going on between these plants about herbivory by aphids, and those signals were being transported through mycorrhizal mycelial networks,” says Johnson.

But just like the human internet, the fungal internet has a dark side. Our internet undermines privacy and facilitates serious crime – and frequently, allows computer viruses to spread. In the same way, plants’ fungal connections mean they are never truly alone, and that malevolent neighbours can harm them.

For one thing, some plants steal from each other using the internet. There are plants that don’t have chlorophyll, so unlike most plants they cannot produce their own energy through photosynthesis. Some of these plants, such as the phantom orchid, get the carbon they need from nearby trees, via the mycelia of fungi that both are connected to.

Other orchids only steal when it suits them. These “mixotrophs” can carry out photosynthesis, but they also “steal” carbon from other plants using the fungal network that links them.

That might not sound too bad. However, plant cybercrime can be much more sinister than a bit of petty theft.

Plants have to compete with their neighbours for resources like water and light. As part of that battle, some release chemicals that harm their rivals.

This “allelopathy” is quite common in trees, including acacias, sugarberries, American sycamores and several species of Eucalyptus. They release substances that either reduce the chances of other plants becoming established nearby, or reduce the spread of microbes around their roots.

Sceptical scientists doubt that allelopathy helps these unfriendly plants much. Surely, they say, the harmful chemicals would be absorbed by soil, or broken down by microbes, before they could travel far.

But maybe plants can get around this problem, by harnessing underground fungal networks that cover greater distances. In 2011, chemical ecologist Kathryn Morris and her colleagues set out to test this theory.

Morris, formerly Barto, grew golden marigolds in containers with mycorrhizal fungi. The pots contained cylinders surrounded by a mesh, with holes small enough to keep roots out but large enough to let in mycelia. Half of these cylinders were turned regularly to stop fungal networks growing in them.

The team tested the soil in the cylinders for two compounds made by the marigolds, which can slow the growth of other plants and kill nematode worms. In the cylinders where the fungi were allowed to grow, levels of the two compounds were 179% and 278% higher than in cylinders without fungi. That suggests the mycelia really did transport the toxins.

The team then grew lettuce seedlings in the soil from both sets of containers. After 25 days, those grown in the more toxin-rich soil weighed 40% less than those in soil isolated from the mycelia. “These experiments show the fungal networks can transport these chemicals in high enough concentrations to affect plant growth,” says Morris, who is now based at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.

In response, some have argued that the chemicals might not work as well outside the lab. So Michaela Achatz of the Berlin Free University in Germany and her colleagues looked for a similar effect in the wild.

One of the best-studied examples of allelopathy is the American black walnut tree. It inhibits the growth of many plants, including staples like potatoes and cucumbers, by releasing a chemical called jugalone from its leaves and roots.

Achatz and her team placed pots around walnut trees, some of which fungal networks could penetrate. Those pots contained almost four times more jugalone than pots that were rotated to keep out fungal connections. The roots of tomato seedlings planted in the jugalone-rich soil weighed on average 36% less.

Some especially crafty plants might even alter the make-up of nearby fungal communities. Studies have shown that spotted knapweed, slender wild oat and soft brome can all change the fungal make-up of soils. According to Morris, this might allow them to better target rival species with toxic chemicals, by favouring the growth of fungi to which they can both connect.

Animals might also exploit the fungal internet. Some plants produce compounds to attract friendly bacteria and fungi to their roots, but these signals can be picked up by insects and worms looking for tasty roots to eat. In 2012, Morris suggested that the movement of these signalling chemicals through fungal mycelia may inadvertently advertise the plants presence to these animals. However, she says this has not been demonstrated in an experiment.

As a result of this growing body of evidence, many biologists have started using the term “wood wide web” to describe the communications services that fungi provide to plants and other organisms.

“These fungal networks make communication between plants, including those of different species, faster, and more effective,” says Morris. “We don’t think about it because we can usually only see what is above ground. But most of the plants you can see are connected below ground, not directly through their roots but via their mycelial connections.”

The fungal internet exemplifies one of the great lessons of ecology: seemingly separate organisms are often connected, and may depend on each other. “Ecologists have known for some time that organisms are more interconnected and interdependent,” says Boddy. The wood wide web seems to be a crucial part of how these connections form.

This is what the fossil fuel industry thinks about you:

A fossil fuel industry PR group just released this cartoon video as an attack on Global Divestment Day:

This video was put out by the Environmental Policy Alliance, a front group for Big Oil that pushes out specious and inaccurate opposition research on individuals and organizations who fight climate change. The group is led by Rick Berman, who was taped by the New York Times as saying in a talk to oil executives that “you have to play dirty to win”.

This is what the fossil fuel industry is saying about you: that you’re a bunch of big, bad, radicals who want everyone to go hungry in the dark. But we know that’s ridiculous. We know that this movement is pushing for a just, sustainable future for all of us – one where energy is something that helps communities instead of hurting them, and where you don’t need to spend a lot of money to have a voice.

If that’s a movement you’re excited to be part of, join us tomorrow for Global Divestment Day:

Click here to find a Global Divestment Day event.

The industry’s hired guns are trying to take over the #divest hashtag ahead of the big day. Will you help make sure #divest stays a tool that we can connect and celebrate with? Social media can be a simple numbers game, and you can help us beat back these PR flacks:

Click here to tweet #divest.

This video is pretty low… but it’s also pretty laughable. In fact, that’s just what we did when we stumbled across it yesterday.

Then Aaron Packard, our Oceania Region Coordinator, used his own narration skills to do a remix of the video. And THEN the “Environmental Policy Alliance” made YouTube take down our parody version of the video – but you can still listen to Aaron’s fake “oil baron” narration below. If the fossil fuel industry was being honest, this is what they’d actually say:

Click here to watch our parody version.

Apple’s New Headquarters Will Be Powered Entirely By The Sun

by Posted on

Apple’s New Headquarters Will Be Powered Entirely By The Sun

Share:

CREDIT: shutterstock

On Tuesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced the company’s plans to build a 130-megawatt solar farm to power its stores and facilities located in California. Speaking at a technology conference hosted by Goldman Sachs, Cook said Apple will work with First Solar to build the $850-million plant, which will be sited on 1,300 acres in the interior of central California’s Monterey County. Apple’s two campuses in Cupertino, several hours’ drive north of the plant, as well as a data center and the state’s 52 Apple stores will all get power from the development, according to Cook.

The announcement is the second major solar commitment made by Apple so far this month. Earlier in February, Apple announced it was building a massive solar-powered global data command center in neighboring Arizona. The planned investment of $2 billion will include a 70-megawatt solar farm to power the facility.

Apple currently has three solar farms; two in North Carolina and one in Nevada. In 2013, Apple began using 100 percent renewable energy to power its data centers, a goal not yet achieved by Amazon, Google and Facebook.

“We know at Apple that climate change is real,” Cook said on Tuesday. “Our view is that the time for talk is past and the time for action is now.”

Cook also said that the California solar project, which is the company’s biggest solar deal to-date, will lead to major savings for Apple, though he stressed that the company is doing it because “it’s right to do.”

Apple’s California solar farm, called the First Solar California Flats Solar Project, is the largest solar procurement deal by a company that’s not a utility. It is also the first wholesale commercial and industrial power-purchase (PPA) agreement for First Solar, which signed a 25-year PPA with Pacific Gas and Electric.

“Over time, the renewable energy from California Flats will provide cost savings over alternative sources of energy as well as substantially lower environmental impact,” said Joe Kishkill, Chief Commercial Officer for First Solar, in a statement. “Apple is leading the way in addressing climate change by showing how large companies can serve their operations with 100 percent clean, renewable energy.”

Shares of Arizona-based First Solar, a leading photovoltaic company with over 10 gigawatts installed globally, surged nearly five percent after the news of the Apple deal.

In 2013 Apple hired Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA from 2009 to 2013, as vice president of environmental initiatives. Last summer, Apple released its 2014 Environmental Responsibility Repor t. The report states that the company’s carbon footprint from energy use dropped by nearly a third from fiscal year 2011 to 2013, even as energy consumption increased 44 percent. According to the report, carbon emissions from the company’s manufacturing partners – often located oversees in countries like China – remain the largest portion of Apple’s carbon footprint, an area the company is “committed to addressing.”

The fact that much of Apple’s emissions come from partners overseas underscores a difficult truth for the company: that beyond Apple’s headquarters in renewable-energy friendly California exists the globalized economy that the company depends on for sourcing, manufacturing, shipping, selling, and using their products. This environment is not easily controlled. Apple can set a leading example by building solar farms, but when it comes to the companies that Apple relies on for supply chain purposes like Foxconn and Pegatron, change is harder to enforce.

Elon Musk says Tesla will unveil a new kind of battery to power your home

Tesla didn’t ship nearly as many cars this quarter as it had projected, but CEO Elon Musk remained upbeat during today’s earnings call as he let some details slip about a brand new product. According to Musk, the company is working on a consumer battery pack for the home. Design of the battery is apparently complete, and production could begin in six months. Tesla is still deciding on a date for unveiling the new unit, but Musk said he was pleased with the result, calling the pack “really great” and voicing his excitement for the project.

What would a Tesla home battery look like? The Toyota Mirai, which uses a hydrogen fuel cell, gives owners the option to remove the battery and use it to supply electrical power to their homes. That battery can reportedly power the average home for a week when fully charged. Employees at many big Silicon Valley tech companies already enjoy free charging stations at their office parking lot. Now imagine if they could use that juice to eliminate their home electric bill. A more practical application for your car would be a backup generator during emergencies, which is how Nissan pitches the battery in its Leaf.

Musk said that production of the battery could begin in six months

On an earnings call last year Musk had laid out his ambition to make something that would live in consumers’ homes, instead of their cars. “We are trying to figure out what would be a cool stationary (battery) pack,” Musk said. “Some will be like the Model S pack: something flat, 5 inches off the wall, wall-mounted, with a beautiful cover, an integrated bi-directional inverter, and plug and play.”

“The long-term demand for stationary energy storage is extraordinary,” added JB Straubel, Tesla’s chief technical officer, during that call. “We’ve done a huge amount of effort there and have talked to major utilities and energy service companies.” That plan seems like it’s now much closer to a reality the company can share with the public.

Pot Is Making Colorado So Much Money They Literally Have To Give Some Back To Residents

BY KRISTEN WYATT
ASSOCIATED PRESS

DENVER (AP) — Colorado’s marijuana experiment was designed to raise revenue for the state and its schools, but a state law may put some of the tax money directly into residents’ pockets, causing quite a headache for lawmakers.

The state constitution limits how much tax money the state can take in before it has to give some back. That means Coloradans may each get their own cut of the $50 million in recreational pot taxes collected in the first year of legal weed. It’s a situation so bizarre that it’s gotten Republicans and Democrats, for once, to agree on a tax issue.

Even some pot shoppers are surprised Colorado may not keep the taxes that were promised to go toward school construction when voters legalized marijuana in 2012.

“I have no problem paying taxes if they’re going to schools,” said Maddy Beaumier, 25, who was visiting a dispensary near the Capitol.

But David Huff, a 50-year-old carpenter from Aurora, said taxes that add 30 percent or more to the price of pot, depending on the jurisdiction, are too steep.

“I don’t care if they write me a check, or refund it in my taxes, or just give me a free joint next time I come in. The taxes are too high, and they should give it back,” Huff said.

Legal weed has collided with the tax limitation movement because a 1992 voter-approved constitutional amendment called the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights requires all new taxes to go before voters.

The amendment also requires Colorado to pay back taxpayers when the state collects more than what’s permitted by a formula based on inflation and population growth. Over the years, Colorado has issued refunds six times, totaling more than $3.3 billion.

Republicans and Democrats say there’s no good reason to put pot taxes back into people’s pockets, and state officials are scrambling to figure out how to avoid doling out the money. It may have to be settled by asking Colorado voters, for a third time, to cast a ballot on the issue and exempt pot taxes from the refund requirement.

Republicans concede that marijuana is throwing them off their usual position of wanting tax dollars returned to taxpayers. But they also tend to say that marijuana should pay for itself – that general taxes shouldn’t pay for things like increased drug education and better training for police officers to identify stoned drivers.

“I think it’s appropriate that we keep the money for marijuana that the voters said that we should,” said Republican Senate President Bill Cadman. His party opposes keeping other refunds based on the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights but favors a special ballot question on pot taxes.

“This is a little bit of a different animal. There’s a struggle on this one,” said Sen. Kevin Grantham, one of the Republican budget writers.

After legalizing marijuana in 2012, Colorado voters returned to the polls the following year and approved a 15 percent excise tax on pot for the schools and an additional 10 percent sales tax for lawmakers to spend.

Voters were told those taxes would generate about $70 million in the first year. The state now believes it will rake in about $50 million.

But because the economy is improving and other tax collections are growing faster, Colorado is obligated to give back much of what it has collected. Final numbers aren’t ready, but the governor’s budget writers predict the pot refunds could amount to $30.5 million, or about $7.63 per adult in Colorado.

“It’s just absurd,” said Democratic state Sen. Pat Steadman, one of the Legislature’s budget writers.

The head-scratching extends to Colorado’s marijuana industry. Several industry groups actively campaigned for the pot taxes but aren’t taking a position on whether to refund them.

Mike Elliott of the Denver-based Marijuana Industry Group said it isn’t pushing for lower taxes, but that’s an option lawmakers don’t seem to be considering. State law doesn’t bar lawmakers from cutting taxes without a vote.

Lawmakers have a little time to figure out how to proceed. They’ll consider pot refunds and a separate refund to taxpayers of about $137 million after receiving final tax estimates that are due in March.

When they talk about pot refunds, they’ll have to figure out if the money would go to all taxpayers, or just those who bought pot. Previous refunds have generally been paid through income tax returns, but Colorado also has reduced motor vehicle fees or even reduced sales taxes on trucks.

Lawmakers seem confident that the refund mechanism won’t matter because voters would approve pot taxes a third time if asked.

“This is what the voters want, and if we’re going to have (pot), and the constitution says it’s legal, we damn well better tax it,” Steadman said.