Our Oceans are Under Attack

Many people don't see the connection between the meat they get wrapped in plastic and the animal that provides it

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/69011825/meat-eaters-justify-diet-using-four-ns

It's called the meat paradox: the fact that we can snuggle up to some animals – and stick others on the end of our fork.

How do we manage to tread this line, lamenting horses that died in WWI on one hand but eating cows on the other, or reading stories about Piglet and Babe to our kids and then feeding them ham sandwiches?

Some clues come from new research into how we justify eating meat led by the UK's University of Lancaster and published in the journal Appetite.

Asked why they ate meat, most people gave four main reasons which the researchers called the Four Ns: that meat eating is Natural ("humans are natural carnivores"), Necessary ("meat provides essential nutrients"), Normal ("I was raised eating meat") and Nice ("it's delicious"). Of all these reasons "necessary" was the most common.

The people who endorsed the Four Ns were more likely to be men. They also felt that cows were less likely to experience feelings like sadness and joy, says one of the researchers, Mirra Seigerman of the University of Melbourne's School of Psychological Sciences.

"People love animals and are genuinely concerned about them. But they also eat meat so there's a paradox here and we were interested in finding out how people resolve it," he says. "We think that the Four Ns are a way to alleviate feelings of guilt."

Other reasons for this paradox may be that for most of us meat production is out of sight and we're less likely to make friends with chicken, pigs or cattle, Seigerman points out.

"We also have a different vocabulary for meat – we eat pork and beef instead of pigs and cows," he says.

 

Plan launched to prevent critical climate change by making green energy cheaper than coal

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-green-energy-cheaper-than-coal-10290467.html

Scientists and economists have joined forces to launch a global research initiative to make green energy cheaper than coal within 10 years, a target they believe is critical to avoid dangerous climate change. They have compared the goal to the Apollo programme of the 1960s when the United States stated that it would put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade.

Leading academics, including former government chief scientist Sir David King, past president of the Royal Society Lord Rees, and economists Lord Stern and Lord Layard, in effect said that the world cannot be saved from global warming unless coal – the dirtiest fossil fuel – is put out of business.

By 2025, they hope the research will mean that wind, solar and other forms of green energy will be able to undercut the cost of burning coal to generate power, making it feasible to keep within the critical 2C increase in global temperatures needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

“It all starts with this climate-change risk we’re facing. It’s a looming catastrophe that I think can be avoided,” said Sir David, one of the architects of the programme who has been a long-term advocate of moving away from fossil fuels towards a “decarbonised” economy.

“This is a massively important global opportunity and we need to commit ourselves to action,” Sir David said at the programme’s launch yesterday at the Royal Society in London.

It states that there is a “shocking underspend” on global research and development aimed at renewable energy – amounting to just 2 per of total global public funding on research. This needs to be boosted from $6bn (£4bn) a year to at least $15bn a year, the report says.
Lord Stern, who headed a major government review into the economics of climate change, said that the current cost of coal is about $50 a ton, although the true costs in terms of environmental damage and impact in human health is probably nearer to $200 a ton.

World leaders agreed in 2010 that it was important to limit global temperature increases to 2C which would mean keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to within 450 parts per million.

However, the burning of fossil fuels, and coal-fired power stations in particular, has resulted in carbon dioxide emissions continuing to increase, with concentrations reaching 400ppm with no signs of abating. Meanwhile, global energy demands are expected to rise by a further third by 2035.

“If it rises to over 2C above that level, there will be serious environmental consequences for billions of people – including increased droughts, floods and storms. Millions will lose their livelihood and have to migrate,” it says.

 

The Human stomach was never designed to process meat it is far to long and the meat purifies, that is why people smell so bad.
I bet that will cause a stink.

 

Arctic Methane Alert — Ramp-Up at Numerous Reporting Stations Shows Signature of an Amplifying Feedback

 

Here's another word set that we'll be hearing more of...'tipping point'.

http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_tipping_points.htm

Personally, I think the tipping point has been reached and it's too late to stop the coming climate changes. Although we think of ourselves as clever as anything in the universe, there is nothing to do but plan for the worst, because the Earth is fixin' to run us over.

As humans are barely capable of agreeing or working together when times are good, an irreversible global catastrophe will not bring out the best in humans. Once disease and starvation is widespread, infrastructure crumbles and the restraints of organizations and laws are diminished, the bestial traits of humans will reappear.

 

So much of the Green advice is so wrong and does not work, just creating complete reliance on energy when we should be trying to avoid using energy where we can. Survival will only be for those who can adapt to changing climate and not using so many energy hungry appliances.

The more you insulate your home the more reliant on energy you become, using the energy already supplied by the sun`s radiation makes more sense than insulating it from warming your home which can be 80 percent of your heating.
That 80 percent is the figures that the experts say you can save if you insulate your home. Insulation works both ways,Helps keeps things cool or keeps things hot.
All homes when built have some insulation thats why people say that their home is colder inside than out side in the sun.

 

I was just watching part 5 of 'the Roosevelts' special on PBS last night, and it talked of how FDR was able to bring the American people together in a joint effort to bring us out of the Great Depression.

I could well imagine what the possibilities could be if we could bring the entire USA (or even a great part of the world) to an effort to make one's home more energy efficient. Just a little inspection, and a little effort to increase the insulation and leak efficiencies by 10-15 percent could have a huge effect when considering the total mass of homes. :idea:

 

our aceans are under attack

In New Zealand the government has been helping to insulate thousands of homes with the result that all these people have homes that never benefit from the free radiation supplied from the sun every day, all year round and have homes they can not afford to heat,ventilate, dehumidify a couple of months in the year in New Zealand.
Just like living in a space station where every thing you need leaves you completely dependent on energy.
If thermal insulating your home saves 80 percent of your heating cost that also means that you miss out on 80 percent of the free heating from the ambient temperature of the sun.
Thermal insulation just slows the rate of heat transfer form warm areas to cold and can be used sensibly to advantage but not by making one rule for all conditions in all countries.

 

I don't understand what you are saying. If you want the inside of your house to reflect the ambient conditions outside, just open your windows. If you're impatient, open the windows and turn on a fan or two set in your windows.

Thick insulation is a good idea, whether you are in a hot or a cold environment.

 

Sorry, that is just really ignorant of reality. I have a heavily insulated house with a lot of north-facing windows. In summer I have the eaves blocking the sun shining into the house to minimise heat gain, in winter the sun can reach a long way inside warming the interior.

I've lived in poorly or uninsulated houses. They cost far more to heat and cool than well insulated ones. This isn't even a debatable issue, it's straight physics.

Your argument only works if you consider living inside an insulated container or cool room to be a house.

PDW

 

our aceans are under attack

Thick thermal insulation makes certain that no radiant free heat from the sun or ambient air temperatures reaches the inside of your home so you are compelled to heat or cool or ventilate your home using expensive energy

If you open the windows or turn on a fan you are using energy and you are causing a draft which causes wind chill in living bodies which cancels out the benefits of warm temperatures. Radiant heating of your home is more permanent than warming air which cools very rapidly.

 

our aceans are under attack

If you are living in a heavily thermal insulated home you are in a insulated container or cool room it will be either hot or cold unless you use energy to heat or cool your home to the desired temperature. Thermal insulation just slows the rate of heat transfer from hot areas to cold.Heat always travels from hot to cold that is simple physics.

I can check the temperatures any where in my home at any time and know that if I had insulation in my ceiling space I would loose free heat from the sun because the ceiling space is the warmest place in the house most of the time and that radiant heat warms the inside of my home for free.
Yes I do have thermal insulation in some parts of the house that face south

 

The best heating system a house can have is the one you don't realize is there. No radiators clanking in the night. No vents whooshing like a jet preparing for takeoff. No dust-spewing ductwork to run up your allergists' bills. Just an even blanket of heat, right where you want it.

That's the appeal of radiant floor heating, says This Old House plumbing and heating expert Richard Trethewey, who has long been a fan. "It's truly invisible," he says. But a radiant floor system has more than just aesthetics going for it. It's also a highly efficient way to heat a house, increasing comfort as it reduces energy costs.



http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,1548320,00.html

In a radiant setup, the warmth is supplied by hot-water tubes or electric wires buried underneath the floor. As the invisible waves of thermal radiation rise from below, they warm up any objects they strike, which radiate that captured heat in turn. Though the air temperature remains relatively constant, you stay comfortable because the surrounding surfaces aren't stealing warmth from your body.

Hot-water "hydronic" systems—the most popular and cost effective way to heat an entire house—circulate water from a boiler or water heater through loops of 1/2-inch polyethylene tubing. The flexible tubes can be installed in a variety of ways: on top of the subfloor in grooved panels or snap-in grids; clipped *into aluminum strips on the underside of the floor; or embedded in poured concrete.

 

The Greens have been sucked in by the Manufacturers and their research sponsored results..
to order, just like the oil, infant formula and other irresponsible Industry leaders with their channels to governments giving their advice to enhance sales of their products.

Radiant heat (like the sun) is the way to go for sensible home heating in many forms,heat the home surroundings not the air which does not retain heat for long and causes drafts and chills.
If you make a home warmer that means that the air can carry more moisture so you need to dehumidify and ventilate which uses energy. It is pretty much a no win situation trying to make a home comfortable. Nature usually provides a good balance of temperatures and warmth, ventilation most of the time and to take advantage of what is available free makes sense, especially if you are in a temperate climate. Where you live dictates how you should build a home.

 

We're Eating Less Meat—Yet Factory Farms Are Still Growing

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/06/factory-farms-keep-getting-bigger

The United States remains one of the globe's most carnivorous nations, but things have changed subtly in recent decades. While our consumption of chicken has skyrocketed, we're eating much less red meat.

Overall per capita meat consumption has fallen nearly 10 percent since the 2007-'8 financial meltdown; and as we cut back on quantity, we're more likely to pay up for animals raised outside and not dosed with all manner of drugs.

Meanwhile, though, the meat industry lurches on, consolidating operations and stuffing its factory-scale facilities ever tighter with animals

Among the many ecological problems you create when you concentrate so many animals in one place is massive loads of manure. How much?

These factory-farmed livestock produced 369 million tons of manure in 2012, about 13 times as much as the sewage produced by the entire U.S. population. This 13.8 billion cubic feet of manure is enough to fill the Dallas Cowboys stadium 133 times.

When humans live together in large numbers, as in cities, we've learned to treat our waste before sending it downstream. The meat industry faces no such requirement, and instead collects manure in large outdoor cesspools (known, picturesquely, as "lagoons") before being spread on surrounding farmland. Some individual counties churn out much more waste than large metropolises.

Recycling manure as farm fertilizer is an ecologically sound idea in the abstract—but when animals are concentrated in such numbers, they produce much more waste than surrounding landscapes can healthily absorb. As a result, nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus leach into streams and rivers, feeding algae blooms and fouling drinking water. Then there are bacterial nasties. "Six of the 150 pathogens found in animal manure are responsible for 90 percent of human food- and water-borne diseases: Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli 0157:H7, Cryptosporidium and Giardia," Food and Water Watch reports.

Air, too, is a problem, as anyone who's ever gotten close to a teeming cow, pig, or chicken facility can testify. Thousands of people, of course, are forced to live near them or work on them, and it's no picnic. "Overexposure to hydrogen sulfide [a pungent gas emanating from lagoons] can cause dizziness, nausea, headaches, respiratory failure, hypoxia and even death," Food and Water Watch states. "[W]orkers in factory farm facilities experience high levels of asthma-like symptoms, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases."

And these counties tended to be bunched together in great manure-churning clusters. Note, for example, how most industrial-scale hog production takes place in the Midwest and in eastern North Carolina: