The Kennedy family will need to put up with looking at new offshore wind turbines

The hypocritical and short-sighted Kennedy family will just need to get used to the view, for the common good. As reported by Discover Magazine.

The U.S. Interior Department announced new rules today that will allow the first offshore wind turbines to go up along the Atlantic Coast, including the site near Cape Cod that the Kennedy family famously opposed. This was a chance for the Kennedys to step up and do the right thing, but they blew it for years and years. Now the federal government is forcing it on them and I'm glad. Consider what a tiny burden this was on them to look at those admittedly huge turbines in the distance. It's no worse a burden than for any of us to have to look at the gaudy Kennedy compound from a distance. The turbines will be about 8 miles from Kennedy's trophy house in Hyannis Port. In clear conditions, the wind turbines will appear one half-inch above the horizon. They will look like this from the Kennedy compound. We're going to all have to make some sacrifices for the common good if we want to maintain some semblance of our lifestyle. It has continually amazed me that the wealthy Kennedys couldn't have made a good example of themselves by advocating, not stifling, this worthy wind project. How much energy will it produce? Cape Wind's website provides the answer:

Cape Wind will be rated to produce up to 468 megawatts of wind power as each wind turbine will produce up to 3.6 megawatts. Maximum expected production will be 454 megawatts. Average expected production will be 170 megawatts which is almost 75% of the 230 megawatt average electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.

Where do the Kennedys think they will get their energy if they don't get it from clean wind? In my mind this is a classic case of compartmentalized thinking all bound up in status-seeking power.

Continue ReadingThe Kennedy family will need to put up with looking at new offshore wind turbines

We are ecologically incontinent.

We just can't stop ourselves. Further, our advocacy of the "free market" is our way of announcing that we do not intend to act responsibly. What's the latest chapter in human ecological incontinence? The destruction of bluefin tuna.

Overfishing will wipe out the breeding population of Atlantic bluefin tuna, one of the ocean's largest and fastest predators, in three years unless catches are dramatically reduced, conservation group WWF said on Tuesday.

We've already wiped out Atlantic cod, so why not? That must be the mentality.

Continue ReadingWe are ecologically incontinent.

Science – It’s a bee-utiful thing!

None of us like bee stings, but we all like the produce that bees help to sustain, not least the honey that comes from the bees themselves. Bees are an extremely important part of our agricultural eco-system, especially for sustainable and organic farmers. I was therefore very interested to read in Ars Technica's science blog about a possible cure for colony collapse disorder. Apiarists were extremely worried when they noticed the sudden and dramatic decline of otherwise healthy aviaries in recent years. Many suggestions were made as to root cause, including cell phone use. It now appears that a cure is on the horizon. Spanish researchers, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Microbiology Reports, investigated colony collapse in many Spanish aviaries. They isolated a parasitic fungus, which they discovered to be the root cause of the colony collapse. Treating other diseased colonies with an anti-fungal agent enabled the colonies to recover completely. I'm looking forwards to a bee-utiful summer!

Continue ReadingScience – It’s a bee-utiful thing!

What’s driving George Will’s warped views on environmental issues, including his criticism of compact fluorescent light bulbs?

On issues relating to the environment, George Will’s strategy has been to draw his curve, then plot his data. As of late, he’s been denying far more than climate change; he’s denying the data relating to climate change. It has gotten so bad that he’s been pointing to changes in the weather to attempt to rebut evidence that there are changes in climate, an unfair tactic that even fourth-graders know enough to criticize. Throughout his arguments, Will delights in sprinkling in pointy little reminders that the government is always misguided, as though we should trust in the “free market.” This week, in an article published by the Washington Post, Will has employed all of his favorite forms of paltering in a full-scale attack on compact fluorescent light bulbs. He doesn't like compact fluorescent bulbs for a variety of reasons that he enunciates. Without citing any statistics, he claims that some of those bulbs might not last as long as the bulb life indicated on the package. Because of the existence of mercury in the bulbs, he gripes that we can’t just toss them away in the general trash when they break or cease working. Will also complains that CFL’s are not all-purpose bulbs—they don’t work in hot places with limited airflow. And they take a bit to get to their full brightness. Down with CFL’s!

Continue ReadingWhat’s driving George Will’s warped views on environmental issues, including his criticism of compact fluorescent light bulbs?

What should we do about all of the new people?

What should we do about all of the new people? What new people? Consider this information from the British Medical Journal:

The world’s population now exceeds 6700 million, and humankind’s consumption of fossil fuels, fresh water, crops, fish, and forests exceeds supply. These facts are connected. The annual increase in population of about 79 million means that every week an extra 1.5 million people need food and somewhere to live. This amounts to a huge new city each week, somewhere, which destroys wildlife habitats and augments world fossil fuel consumption.

What does the BMJ suggest as a solution? Nothing coercive. Rather, start by emphasizing that two children is the largest responsible number of children a family should have. Second, make sure that everyone has access to birth control, given that about 1/2 of the world's births are unplanned; that's right: one-half. This article asks, "isn’t contraception the medical profession’s prime contribution for all countries?" I would think so. It's time to stop being cowed by those who get shrill--even furious--when we merely raise the issue of overpopulation, as though discussing the carrying capacity of the Earth is automatically the precursor to instituting coercive techniques to stop only poor people from having children. It's time to discuss this issue of overpopulation firmly and responsibly, keeping in mind that each birth in a developed Western country uses 160 times the amount of resources as each baby born in the Third World.

Continue ReadingWhat should we do about all of the new people?