Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Exxon Free Environmental Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3312)	2/25/2009 2:14:32 PM
From: Land Shark	Respond to of 49020

"Gaia" scientist says life doomed by climate woes Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:17pm GMT Email \| Print \| Share\| Single Page[-] Text [+] By Peter Griffiths LONDON (Reuters) - Climate change will wipe out most life on Earth by the end of this century and mankind is too late to avert catastrophe, a leading British climate scientist said. James Lovelock, 89, famous for his Gaia theory of the Earth being a kind of living organism, said higher temperatures will turn parts of the world into desert and raise sea levels, flooding other regions. His apocalyptic theory foresees crop failures, drought and death on an unprecedented scale. The population of this hot, barren world could shrink from about seven billion to one billion by 2100 as people compete for ever-scarcer resources. "It will be death on a grand scale from famine and lack of water," Lovelock told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday. "It could be a reduction to a billion (people) or less." By 2040, temperatures in European cities will rise to an average of 110 Fahrenheit (43 Celsius) in summer, the same as Baghdad and parts of Europe in the 2003 heatwave. "The land will gradually revert to scrub and desert. You can look at as if the Sahara were steadily moving into Europe. It's not just Europe; the whole world will be changing in that way." Attempts to cut emissions of planet-warming gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in an attempt to reduce the risks are probably doomed to failure, he added. Even if the world found a way of cutting emissions to zero, it is now too late to cool the Earth. uk.reuters.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3312)	2/27/2009 8:47:01 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 49020

CA wants to build new reservoirs to deal with their water emergency? For god's sake, half the state is a desert, what do they expect?! Where is the water to fill these new reservoirs supposed to come from? Haven't they looked at Lake Mead lately? Don't they know what evaporation is? What is wrong these guys, WR? If they had begun a program to convert all the farmers to drip irrigation after the 89-92 drought, they wouldn't be in this mess. Something like 80% of the water used in CA goes to irrigating the desert for agriculture, and their water is absurdly subsidized, so there has never been any incentive to go to drip irrigation. Time to change.... Schwarzenegger declares Calif. drought emergency By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Friday because of three years of below-average rain and snowfall in California, a step that urges urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent. "This drought is having a devastating impact on our people, our communities, our economy and our environment, making today's action absolutely necessary," the Republican governor said in his statement. Mandatory rationing is an option if the declaration and other measures are insufficient. The drought has forced farmers to fallow their fields, put thousands of agricultural workers out of work and led to conservation measures in cities throughout the state, which is the nation's top agricultural producer. Agriculture losses could reach $2.8 billion this year and cost 95,000 jobs, said Lester Snow, the state water director. State agencies must now provide assistance for affected communities and businesses and the Department of Water Resources must protect supplies, all accompanied by a statewide conservation campaign. Three dry winters have left California's state- and federally operated reservoirs at their lowest levels since 1992. Federal water managers plan to temporarily cut off water this March to thousands of California farms. The state has said it probably would deliver just 15 percent of the water contractors have requested this year. Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought in June but stopped short of calling a state of emergency. His 2008 executive order directed the state Department of Water Resources to speed water transfers to areas with the worst shortages and help local water districts with conservation efforts. Over the last few weeks, storms have helped bring the seasons' rain totals to 87 percent of average, but the Sierra snowpack remains at 78 percent of normal for this time of year. State hydrologists say the snowpack must reach between 120 to 130 percent of normal to make up for the two previous dry winters and replenish California's key reservoirs. Court decisions intended to protect threatened fish species also have forced a significant cutback in pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, the heart of the state's delivery system. The governor, farmers and lawmakers have argued for years that California must upgrade its decades-old water supply and delivery system and build new reservoirs. "The situation is extremely dire," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, adding that the governor's action Friday "underscores the urgency of serving the long-term structural problems." The state delivers water to more than 25 million Californians and more than 750,000 acres of farmland. Schwarzenegger's order leaves the door open for more severe restrictions later. Additional measures can include mandatory water rationing and water reductions if there is no improvement in water reserves and residents fail to conserve on their own. At least 25 water agencies throughout the state already have imposed mandatory restrictions, while 66 others have voluntary measures in place. The state prefers such local efforts so it does not have to call for statewide rationing, Snow said Almond farmer Shawn Coburn of Mendota said the move comes too late for many growers who already are halfway through the season. Some farmers didn't bring in bees to pollinate, while others sprayed their orchards with chemicals that keep nuts from forming. "It's too late," he said. "It's going to sound horrible coming from a farmer because you never turn down help, but come on, this thing is over with." news.yahoo.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3312)	3/5/2009 1:08:12 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 49020

Why doesn't LA just follow Berkeley's model, and support people's desire to switch to solar? L.A. Voters Say 'No' to Solar Measure Voters seemed to have defeated the controversial Measure B by a narrow margin. The measure would have mandated L.A.'s utility to add more solar power to its mix. Opponents said it would've excluded private installers from participating in the utility's solar program. by: Ucilia Wang Bullet Arrow March 4, 2009 Los Angeles voters appeared to have narrowly defeated a contentious ballot measure that would have required its utility to boost its solar electricity supply by 2014. Advertisement Measure B received 50.3 percent of "no" vote, according to results from Tuesday's election. The results are unofficial for now because the L.A. City Clerk's Office is still tallying votes, which won't be certified until 21 days after the election. The final results could change from what was posted Wednesday. The returns showed that voters have embraced the argument that Measure B would rob business opportunities from private installers of solar energy systems and reward power to the city's utility and City Council at the expense of the ratepayers. Measure B. would have mandated the Los Angles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to install 400 megawatts worth of solar panels on commercial and institutional rooftops and other spaces within the L.A. basin by 2014. The proposal drew criticism from some solar energy advocates, who questioned whether it would deliver cheaper solar power to consumers. One of the sticking points was the ballot language that would give LADWP the authority to "install, operate, maintain and repair and/or oversee the installation, operation, maintenance and repair of solar power installations within the City and on City-owned airports." Banks and other investors can owned some of the projects by providing financing and taking advantage of tax breaks, but the LADWP would still be the one in charge of installing, operating and maintaining the systems. The California Solar Energy Industries Association took no position on the measure, though it voices concerns about the measure's impact on private solar installers, costs to ratepayers and other issues on its Website. Adam Browning, executive director of the Vote Solar Initiative, raised similar concerns in an opinion piece, questioning the LADWP's ability to provide cheaper solar power than private power plant developers that have been building projects to sell power to utilities up and down the state. Supporters said the proposal would create new jobs and greatly boost the city's use of solar energy, a good thing considering that half of the city's electricity production comes from coal-fired power plants. Opponents said the proposal is a shrewd attempt to shut out private solar energy installers and transfer an oversight authority of the program from a five-member commission to the City Council. The utility worker's union supported Measure B, so did Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The California League of Conservation Voters said Measure B would speed up solar energy developments in the city, which is generating 13 megawatts of solar power – less than 1 percent of the city's electricity supply. The Sierra Club also supports the measure. greentechmedia.com