WoW! This is the new energy charge for the US. Note that the new chart shows how much energy we waste as well as how much weed is! Far more goes to waste.
And 2013 was the first year that energy consumption was up, since 2010. One benefit of a recession is that you produce less of a carbon footprint, and get more efficient.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2014/Apr/NR-14-04-01.html#.VCOBhMcpDMK
This is a sustainability-oriented blog. Topics pertaining Energy Efficiency (EE), Telecommuting, Sustainable Health/Wellness, etc., but mainly focus on solutions to non-sustainable practices and trying to address means and methods for resolving them. Sustainability is something that we all have to do, sooner or later! (Low politico please!).
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The energy we (US) use, and don't!
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Green, But Mostly White: The Lack Of Diversity In Enviro Movement, 5 parts - JustMeans
Green, But Mostly White: The Lack Of Diversity In The Environmental Movement, Part 1 of 5—Future 500 | Justmeans:
There are 5 parts to this series. It's talking about who is evolved int the Environmental movement, and why there isn't more diversity. And why that is starting to change?
This is a very interesting 5 part series by several authors.
Part 1: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-1 by Danna Pfahl
Part 2: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-2-of-5-future by Marvin Smith
Part 3: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-3-of-5 by Shilpi Chhatray
Part 4: http://3blmedia.com/News/Green-Mostly-White-Lack-Diversity-Environmental-Movement-Part-4-5-Future-500 by Brandon Steele
Part 5: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-5-of-5-future by Nick Sorrentio
The last one, by Sorrentio, talks about engaging businesses to help address environmental issues. SustainZine has long promoted serious action by business (and all organizations) in areas where the payback is obvious and near-term. Conservation, as in reducing energy, improved logistics (so less shipping), and telecommuting (so no travel) are all areas that have rapid payback to business and to the environment. So not only area companies making money in doing this, they are helping out the environment in doing this. Plus, it can become a perpetuity of savings, if properly monitored and maintained.
This is something we call in the triple bottom-line business, a win-win-win... and a perpetuity of savings.
'via Blog this'
There are 5 parts to this series. It's talking about who is evolved int the Environmental movement, and why there isn't more diversity. And why that is starting to change?
This is a very interesting 5 part series by several authors.
Part 1: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-1 by Danna Pfahl
Part 2: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-2-of-5-future by Marvin Smith
Part 3: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-3-of-5 by Shilpi Chhatray
Part 4: http://3blmedia.com/News/Green-Mostly-White-Lack-Diversity-Environmental-Movement-Part-4-5-Future-500 by Brandon Steele
Part 5: http://www.justmeans.com/blogs/green-but-mostly-white-the-lack-of-diversity-in-the-environmental-movement-part-5-of-5-future by Nick Sorrentio
The last one, by Sorrentio, talks about engaging businesses to help address environmental issues. SustainZine has long promoted serious action by business (and all organizations) in areas where the payback is obvious and near-term. Conservation, as in reducing energy, improved logistics (so less shipping), and telecommuting (so no travel) are all areas that have rapid payback to business and to the environment. So not only area companies making money in doing this, they are helping out the environment in doing this. Plus, it can become a perpetuity of savings, if properly monitored and maintained.
This is something we call in the triple bottom-line business, a win-win-win... and a perpetuity of savings.
'via Blog this'
Monday, September 1, 2014
Sustainable Universities fall in two
Sustainable Universities falls into to two schools (note the pun).
1) Those that have greener campuses in terms of reduced usage of resources and renewable resources.
2) Those that teach sustainability programs academically.
Of course, doing both is entirely possible... and even highly synergistic.
Here's a few sources of Green campus and green(er) universities:
1) Those that have greener campuses in terms of reduced usage of resources and renewable resources.
2) Those that teach sustainability programs academically.
Of course, doing both is entirely possible... and even highly synergistic.
Here's a few sources of Green campus and green(er) universities:
- Campus Ecology: http://www.nwf.org/campus-ecology.aspx
- Green Report Card: http://www.greenreportcard.org/
- P&P’s Top Green Colleges & Us: http://peopleandplanet.org/greenleague
- People & Plant’s 2013 College Report: http://peopleandplanet.org/green-league-2013/tables
Plus there has been some rather interesting reports on the topic in August of 2014. So this list should be updated soon.
Keywords: Best Universities, Green Education, renewable energy, sustainability, sustainable education, sustainUcation
First published on www.SustainUcation.com, here.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Building a Business Plan: The basic components - YouTube
Building a Business Plan: The basic components - YouTube: "
Here's the basics about a business plan by yours truly, Dr. Elmer Hall, President of
Strategic Business Planning Company. We help develop the plans that every business needs(tm).
"
All, right. It doesn't have direct application to Sustainability... Except that we aim to encourage sustainable businesses in all the spellings of the word "sustainable". Businesses do need to be profitable. Look at the sustainable growth rate model in finance.
This is the basics of a business plan, but we modify a basic business plan to accommodate Intellectual Property protection (read sustainable competitive advantage). And we modify businesses with environmental foot prints to include, well, a sustainability plan.
#BusinessPlan #SustainabilityPlan #IPPlan
'via Blog this'
Here's the basics about a business plan by yours truly, Dr. Elmer Hall, President of
Strategic Business Planning Company. We help develop the plans that every business needs(tm).
"
All, right. It doesn't have direct application to Sustainability... Except that we aim to encourage sustainable businesses in all the spellings of the word "sustainable". Businesses do need to be profitable. Look at the sustainable growth rate model in finance.
This is the basics of a business plan, but we modify a basic business plan to accommodate Intellectual Property protection (read sustainable competitive advantage). And we modify businesses with environmental foot prints to include, well, a sustainability plan.
#BusinessPlan #SustainabilityPlan #IPPlan
'via Blog this'
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Visuals of the planet changes
These visuals of the planet changes over the last 30 or 40 years are impressive, to say the least.
http://nbcnews.to/1uxF6ZM
Here are some cool time lapse photography using satellite imagery over the last few decades.
Check out the Amazon!
Check out the glaciers!
Ouch!
Double ouch!
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times
Why I support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times:
This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.
"There is no such thing as clean coal."
The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.
Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.
But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).
Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.
No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.
Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.
The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.
'via Blog this'
This July 28, 2014 article by Lynn Ringenberg (Professor Emeritus at USF) discusses the horrible health and wellness impacts of burning coal.
"There is no such thing as clean coal."
The good news is that Natural Gas is so plentiful in the states and so very very cheap, that it is seriously supplanting coal in power plant production. NatGas is so plentiful and contain in oil, that 40% to 50% of all US NatGas produced is flared into the atmosphere as an oil byproduct.
Of course the EPA is pushing this conversion along to NatGas. In the absence of an energy policy in the USA, the EPA is the very last stop in this decision process as to produce power, short term and long.
But here is the BIG problem. As we cut back on energy and oil and coal usage in the USA, we move the coal power production to other countries. Our exports are way up. And other countries don't use the same cleaning technologies as we (scrubbers and such).
Here's a great discussion of our coal usage and export-imports at The Energy Collective by Meredith Fowlie on July 29, 2014.
No matter what you feel about the EPA stepping up and getting involved in coal power, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. The EPA is the last, and arguably the worst way to address energy policy, health issues from fossil fuel consumption and global warming.
Some would argue, the EPA actions are better than doing nothing at all.
The EPA is the wrench used to hammer the square nail. Coal has huge impact on health and wellness, so let's export all we've got. We take make the green, they take the black.
'via Blog this'
Labels:
clean coal,
coal,
EPA,
GHG,
global warming,
health costs,
NatGas
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Bill Gates's Favorite Business Book ... and then some ... WSJ
Bill Gates's Favorite Business Book - WSJ:
I was at the beach over the summer and the condo had a book by Bill Gates.
I started reading it and was intrigued. I thought I had read it before, but it was still very interesting. As I'm skimming through into the second chapter, it hit me like a metric ton of CO2. This book was more than 2 decades old, 1994, The Road Ahead. Knowing how it really ended, I skipped ahead to see what his forecasts were for the future of chipdom and computing. He was straight on in several cases.
The point is that reading classic business books is fascinating and it is retrospectical (if that were a word).
This WSJ article talks about the great business books from the perspective of the richest man in the world (as founder of Microsoft), turned most philanthropic man in the work (with the Gates Foundation). When he takes time to write about what he reads, you aught to take notice.
The great business books include, of course, Drucker, Porter, Peters, Senge, ...
Jim Collins G2G and BTL are, well, great!:-). Level five leaders, yeap. By chance, is still growing on me. (See references below.)
Most people will include Sun Tzu with the Art of War, and Machiavelli.
'via Blog this'
I was at the beach over the summer and the condo had a book by Bill Gates.
I started reading it and was intrigued. I thought I had read it before, but it was still very interesting. As I'm skimming through into the second chapter, it hit me like a metric ton of CO2. This book was more than 2 decades old, 1994, The Road Ahead. Knowing how it really ended, I skipped ahead to see what his forecasts were for the future of chipdom and computing. He was straight on in several cases.
The point is that reading classic business books is fascinating and it is retrospectical (if that were a word).
This WSJ article talks about the great business books from the perspective of the richest man in the world (as founder of Microsoft), turned most philanthropic man in the work (with the Gates Foundation). When he takes time to write about what he reads, you aught to take notice.
The great business books include, of course, Drucker, Porter, Peters, Senge, ...
Jim Collins G2G and BTL are, well, great!:-). Level five leaders, yeap. By chance, is still growing on me. (See references below.)
Most people will include Sun Tzu with the Art of War, and Machiavelli.
For production-type clients, I always buy them a copy of the NY Times best-selling novel, The Goal, so they can simply enjoy the experience of (accidentally) learning about
operations management. See the section on Business Fables (2011) in Wikipedia
for some of the coolest business novels to read as an MBA student. Eli Goldratt did a follow-on to The Goal (2001) that was actually the text book associated with the novel; it was called, Beyond the Goal (2004).
operations management. See the section on Business Fables (2011) in Wikipedia
for some of the coolest business novels to read as an MBA student. Eli Goldratt did a follow-on to The Goal (2001) that was actually the text book associated with the novel; it was called, Beyond the Goal (2004).
Speaking of novels and stories and fables, Who Moved My Cheese and Fish! are wonderful classics.
If you were to add to the list of Great Business Books that are must reads for every business professional, and absolutely every MBA, what would it be?
Reference (some)
Business fable.
(2011, August 3). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
15:02, August 12, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_fable&oldid=442779574Collins J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Business fable.
(2011, August 3). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
15:02, August 12, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Business_fable&oldid=442779574Collins J., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Collins, J. (2001). Good
to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
to great. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Collins,
J. (2005). Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.
(cover story). Harvard Business Review,
83(7/8), 136-146.
J. (2005). Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.
(cover story). Harvard Business Review,
83(7/8), 136-146.
Collins,
J. (2012). Effective Management. Leadership
Excellence, 29(4), 3.
J. (2012). Effective Management. Leadership
Excellence, 29(4), 3.
Collins,
J., & Hansen, M.T. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and
luck--Why some thrive despite them all. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
J., & Hansen, M.T. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and
luck--Why some thrive despite them all. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Goldratt, E. M.(2001). Beyond the Goal: Eliyahu Goldratt
speaks on the theory of constraints (Your Coach in a Box). Audiobook.
Goldratt, E. M. and Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.speaks on the theory of constraints (Your Coach in a Box). Audiobook.
Johnson, S., & Blanchard, K., (1998). Who moved my cheese?: An a-mazing way to deal with change in your work and in your life. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Lundin, S. C., Paul,
H., & Christensen, J. (2009). Fish!: A Remarkable Way to Boost Morale and
Improve Results. [Kindle Edition] Hyperion.
H., & Christensen, J. (2009). Fish!: A Remarkable Way to Boost Morale and
Improve Results. [Kindle Edition] Hyperion.
Can jaw-dropping visuals on CO2. BIG smokes vs. BIG OIL | GreenBiz.com
Can jaw-dropping visuals change the climate conversation? | GreenBiz.com:
This week in the news we wave the merger of BIG tobacco. Lorillard Brands if getting bought out by Reynolds; that is, the Newport brands are getting married to a camel. This will make a formidable competitor to Altria's Marlboro man. (I still love the genius of changing your name from Philip Morris USA to "Altria", it makes the company sound so Alteristic!:-)
So these are products, when used as directed will either kill you, or cause you to die younger... i.e., kill you.
The big difference between pollution into the atmosphere is that it is generally not the smoker (and their family it seems with 2nd hand-me-downs) that dies, it is everyone in the vicinity, down wind, and down stream.
The problems with burning fossil fuels, in addition to any other pollution that pollute in the traditional science, they create vast amounts more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) for the atmosphere than what the earth systems have become accustomed to dealing with. If 60% goes into the oceans, that causes increased acidification; what remains in the atmosphere, hangs around for about 100 years -- a deadly experiment that we are just beginning to see the effects of.
At least with tobacco, people enter into the deadly agreement under their own free will. The externalities of the well documented costs in life, income and economic product is largely offset by massive taxes. And it is really other countries that have fast increases in smoking while we in the USA have a rapidly dwindling market. (You could say that the market is dying off, if you wanted to add pun to death and sickness.) Although, electronic cigs are growing rapidly.
But, the BIG producers of fossil fuels, have it rather sweet. They tap a natural resource, like an oil reservoir, pump it dry, sell into energy markets and have no responsibility as to the costs of the use of their products. The jaw dropping visuals from the main article here, show the billions (with a B) of tonnes of CO2 created from/by the BIGgest oil producing companies.
The oil company pays some taxes to the country where it permanently depleted a natural resource. That seems only fair. The health costs of burning coal, direct pollution, are huge but generally not covered by the companies the produce and use it. Countries have taxes on transport fuel, to offset some of the costs of the vehicles. But nobody really pays the costs of the CO2 externalities. Or at least very little is done in that directly.
So the two, or three, questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or allow it to move closer to a duopoly where they can keep raising prices to consumers and have them pay through the nose?
And the questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or move to cap-n-trade? Or subsidize renewables?
The one that seems to work best, and economists all like best, is a direct tax. The tax increases need to gradually escalate, at least at the rate of inflation. This, of course is political suicide. So the tax is out, and no addressable solution is in.
This is a supply and demand world. In fossil fuels you have the BIG consumers, namely China and the USA, and the BIG producer companies. Both are to blame if what they sell/buy kills people. Right?
The sinful problems associated with the dirty companies go on.. and they keep getting BIGger.
'via Blog this'
This week in the news we wave the merger of BIG tobacco. Lorillard Brands if getting bought out by Reynolds; that is, the Newport brands are getting married to a camel. This will make a formidable competitor to Altria's Marlboro man. (I still love the genius of changing your name from Philip Morris USA to "Altria", it makes the company sound so Alteristic!:-)
So these are products, when used as directed will either kill you, or cause you to die younger... i.e., kill you.
The big difference between pollution into the atmosphere is that it is generally not the smoker (and their family it seems with 2nd hand-me-downs) that dies, it is everyone in the vicinity, down wind, and down stream.
The problems with burning fossil fuels, in addition to any other pollution that pollute in the traditional science, they create vast amounts more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) for the atmosphere than what the earth systems have become accustomed to dealing with. If 60% goes into the oceans, that causes increased acidification; what remains in the atmosphere, hangs around for about 100 years -- a deadly experiment that we are just beginning to see the effects of.
At least with tobacco, people enter into the deadly agreement under their own free will. The externalities of the well documented costs in life, income and economic product is largely offset by massive taxes. And it is really other countries that have fast increases in smoking while we in the USA have a rapidly dwindling market. (You could say that the market is dying off, if you wanted to add pun to death and sickness.) Although, electronic cigs are growing rapidly.
But, the BIG producers of fossil fuels, have it rather sweet. They tap a natural resource, like an oil reservoir, pump it dry, sell into energy markets and have no responsibility as to the costs of the use of their products. The jaw dropping visuals from the main article here, show the billions (with a B) of tonnes of CO2 created from/by the BIGgest oil producing companies.
The oil company pays some taxes to the country where it permanently depleted a natural resource. That seems only fair. The health costs of burning coal, direct pollution, are huge but generally not covered by the companies the produce and use it. Countries have taxes on transport fuel, to offset some of the costs of the vehicles. But nobody really pays the costs of the CO2 externalities. Or at least very little is done in that directly.
So the two, or three, questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or allow it to move closer to a duopoly where they can keep raising prices to consumers and have them pay through the nose?
And the questions for government: Should government shut down BIG tobacco? Or tax it more? Or move to cap-n-trade? Or subsidize renewables?
The one that seems to work best, and economists all like best, is a direct tax. The tax increases need to gradually escalate, at least at the rate of inflation. This, of course is political suicide. So the tax is out, and no addressable solution is in.
This is a supply and demand world. In fossil fuels you have the BIG consumers, namely China and the USA, and the BIG producer companies. Both are to blame if what they sell/buy kills people. Right?
The sinful problems associated with the dirty companies go on.. and they keep getting BIGger.
'via Blog this'
Labels:
CO2,
coal,
fossil fuel,
health,
health costs,
oligopoly,
pollution,
tobacco
Monday, July 7, 2014
Garbage-patch tale as flimsy as a single-use plastic bag - SFGate
Garbage-patch tale as flimsy as a single-use plastic bag - SFGate:
So the GREAT Pacific Garbage Patch is not real... Or maybe not nearly as big as originally expected.
Saunders does a great job of attaching the myth behind the original reports of "the size of Texas" and such.
Great sources of info included.
But now I'm really worried. The amount of plastic floating in the oceans amount to only (right, only) 7,000 to 35,000 Tons. But we know the amount of plastic produced each year, the % that gets recycle, the % that goes into a landfill and the paltry % that gets repurposed. That leaves a LOT of tons of plastic each year that go into the environment. If we estimate the amount that goes out the water systems into the oceans you get a LOT of plastics into the oceans. There's a lot of large pieces but the small stuff is mysteriously missing.
There's bit of a mystery working that is well discussed here at the SFGate with four possible theories by Leslie Baehr. None of them look good. The plastic found represent only about 1% of the plastic pollution in the ocean according to one of the researchers Cózar said. More could be hiding below the surface.
Wikipedia of the Great_Pacific_garbage_patch and the
National Geographic on the Pacific Garbage Patch.
Marine Debris at NOAA.
Youtube from Oprah's show where she did an EarthDay on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Several years ago (upload is 2011). Before this new study, obviously.
'via Blog this'
So the GREAT Pacific Garbage Patch is not real... Or maybe not nearly as big as originally expected.
Saunders does a great job of attaching the myth behind the original reports of "the size of Texas" and such.
Great sources of info included.
But now I'm really worried. The amount of plastic floating in the oceans amount to only (right, only) 7,000 to 35,000 Tons. But we know the amount of plastic produced each year, the % that gets recycle, the % that goes into a landfill and the paltry % that gets repurposed. That leaves a LOT of tons of plastic each year that go into the environment. If we estimate the amount that goes out the water systems into the oceans you get a LOT of plastics into the oceans. There's a lot of large pieces but the small stuff is mysteriously missing.
There's bit of a mystery working that is well discussed here at the SFGate with four possible theories by Leslie Baehr. None of them look good. The plastic found represent only about 1% of the plastic pollution in the ocean according to one of the researchers Cózar said. More could be hiding below the surface.
"Indeed, the quantity of plastic floating in the ocean and its final destination are still unknown," the researchers concluded.
It may take hundreds or thousands of years for plastic to degrade. In the warm ocean with lots of sunlight, maybe only 1 year. See here on degrading and the short artgument as to whether plastics ever really biodegrade (although the degrade to smaller bits of the same). Here's a nice little biodegadable table by the NH for the National Park Service, talking about 20 years for plastic bags and 450 for plastic bottles to biodegrade.
All that plastic is going somewhere. I was actually happier knowing where it was going... into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Now we don't know, what we don't know. That's worrisome! Wikipedia of the Great_Pacific_garbage_patch and the
National Geographic on the Pacific Garbage Patch.
Marine Debris at NOAA.
Youtube from Oprah's show where she did an EarthDay on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Several years ago (upload is 2011). Before this new study, obviously.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Efforts Grow to Take the Sting Out of the Bee Die-Off - WSJ
Efforts Grow to Take the Sting Out of the Bee Die-Off - WSJ:
Generally, the topics discussed here aim to look at the sustainability of trends or activities. CCD is worrisome on many levels of sustainability.
This is an interesting update on the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) of bee hives world wide.
Look at the ugly research related to the mix of pesticides and fungicides that seem to cause the demise of bee hives. (See prior SustainZine blog on this.)
It is interesting that the consumer seems largely unaware of this very, very serious problem. To mix he metaphors, bees are the canary in the coal mine of world agriculture. Those things that will kill the bees, may also kill the rest of us over time... assuming that the demise of the world's pollinators does not wipe out the food supply first.
There are so very many issues related to mono-cultures. That is the miles and miles of a single crop. Without diversity, massive amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides, etc. are needed. When something does get through the defense barrier they can get out of control quickly. The weevil in the cotton, the greening in the oranges, the pollinators in the almonds. Amphibians like frogs are interesting to watch, they can be totally wiped out based on what is happening with the water, with the land, or both. The death of the piglet litters?
Golf courses and row crops are a biological wasteland. It takes a lot to keep one croup growing in an area, and all the others out.
'via Blog this'
Generally, the topics discussed here aim to look at the sustainability of trends or activities. CCD is worrisome on many levels of sustainability.
This is an interesting update on the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) of bee hives world wide.
Look at the ugly research related to the mix of pesticides and fungicides that seem to cause the demise of bee hives. (See prior SustainZine blog on this.)
It is interesting that the consumer seems largely unaware of this very, very serious problem. To mix he metaphors, bees are the canary in the coal mine of world agriculture. Those things that will kill the bees, may also kill the rest of us over time... assuming that the demise of the world's pollinators does not wipe out the food supply first.
There are so very many issues related to mono-cultures. That is the miles and miles of a single crop. Without diversity, massive amounts of pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides, etc. are needed. When something does get through the defense barrier they can get out of control quickly. The weevil in the cotton, the greening in the oranges, the pollinators in the almonds. Amphibians like frogs are interesting to watch, they can be totally wiped out based on what is happening with the water, with the land, or both. The death of the piglet litters?
Golf courses and row crops are a biological wasteland. It takes a lot to keep one croup growing in an area, and all the others out.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)